WHAT’S CONTENT GOT TO DO WITH IT?
Analyzing the content of U.S. late-night televised humor during the 2020 Democratic Party primary debates
Kimberley W. Ho 11762675 Master’s Thesis University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Communication
Political Communication
Supervisor: A. Damstra 31 January 2020
Abstract
Studies of political satire in Communication Science have come to the conclusion that
different types of satire, mainly Horatian and Juvenalian satire, have different effects – that is, Juvenalian satire is the more persuasive form of satire. Yet, there is no operationalization that allows us to link the content of satire to these two traditions. This thesis aims to fill that gap by analyzing the coverage of the 2020 Democratic Party primary debates in late-night satire. In doing so, it does not only look at The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, two oft-studied shows in literature, but includes 13 shows that are currently on air. In addition, it takes into account this year’s gender-diverse pool of candidates as no less than six women entered the race. The research question guiding this thesis is as follows: How, if at all, do U.S. late-night televised satire shows differ in the content of their jokes about Democratic presidential candidates, and to what extent is the content of jokes dependent on the biological sex of the candidates? The results of the content analysis show that the majority of time in late-night satire is spent on delivering Horatian-style jokes about the personal characteristics of the presidential candidate, and that this is no different for male or female candidates. As such, it should be seen as a starting point for further research that focuses on the persuasive effects of consuming political satire, emphasizing the attention that needs to be dedicated to the joke as a unit of analysis.
Introduction
In June 2019, well over a year from the 2020 U.S. Presidential elections, the Democratic Party’s field of candidates was historically large: nearly 30 individuals campaigned to become the party’s nominee for president of the United States in the 2020 presidential election,
forcing the first two DNC-sanctioned debates to be split over two nights to ensure air time (Burns, Flegenheimer, Lee, Lerer & Martin, 2019). Among this large group were big names such as former Vice President Joe Biden, and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, but also newcomers such as 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg, and entrepreneur Andrew Yang. And whilst women remain underrepresented in functions of higher office (Jalalzai, 2006), the Democratic field of candidates was not only one of the largest, but also one of the most diverse: no less than six women, Tulsi Gabbard, Amy Klobuchar, Elizabeth Warren, Marianne Williamson, Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris, entered the race (Dittmar & Walsh, 2019).
U.S. Presidential candidates have regularly appeared on entertainment-based television shows since the 1990s to address potential voters, or to bypass the traditional news media’s gatekeeping – making entertainment TV an increasingly important aspect of US Presidential races (Baumgartner & Morris, 2006). In addition, political entertainment, or politicotainment, has become increasingly popular, educating and entertaining audiences at the same time (Hall, 2014). Political entertainment shows are also referred to as ‘soft news’ as some audience members, particularly the younger demographic, treat political humor as a reliable source of news (Arpan, Bae, Chen and Greene, 2011; Jones, 2010; Littau & Stewart, 2015; Meddaugh, 2010; Michaud White, 2015; Morris, 2009). This has not only sparked an increase in the number of political entertainment shows, it has also made political jokes a staple for late-night talk show hosts’ opening monologues (Brewer & Marquardt, 2007; Holbert, 2005; Niven, Lichter & Amundson, 2003).
In turn, this genre’s popularity has garnered academic attention: Communication scientists have studied political satire for its persuasive effects. Whether these effects are positive or negative remains debatable (see, for example, Faina, 2010; Holbert, Hmielowski, Jain, Lather & Morey, 2011; Jones & Baym, 2010), but the general consensus is that different types of humor influence audiences in different ways (LaMarre, Landreville, Young & Gilkerson, 2014). The majority of these studies have focused on two shows: The Daily Show (TDS) with
Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report (Michaud White, 2015; Littau & Stewart, 2015). Whilst TDS remains one of the most popular political satire shows on air, Jon Stewart left as host in
2015 and it is now hosted by comedian Trevor Noah; The Colbert Report has been off air for almost five years now and its host Stephen Colbert has moved on to host his own late-night talk show. In other words, things have changed.
This study addresses those changes by taking a step back; focusing not on the effects of political satire but on the content by questioning, if at all, jokes across different shows of political satire/entertainment actually differ. After all, it is the content of a show that
persuades audiences, and a better understanding of the differences (or commonalities) between shows will help differentiate between the distinct effects types of humor have on audiences. Taking the Democratic Party presidential debates as a sample, this study looks at 13 popular late-night shows that are currently on air, ranging from established satire shows such as The Daily Show or talk shows such as The Tonight Show to more recent productions like Patriot Act, available only on the online streaming service Netflix. It analyzes the content of jokes targeted at presidential candidates, and looks for differences in type of humor.
In addition, the number of shows is not the only change that this study addresses; it also takes this year’s historically high number of female Democratic Presidential candidates into consideration by examining whether political satire follows the mainstream media’s tendency to cover male and female politicians in different ways (Jalalzai, 2006; Wasburn & Wasburn, 2011).
Based on all this, the main research question guiding this thesis is: How, if at all, do U.S. late-night televised satire shows differ in the content of their jokes about Democratic presidential candidates, and to what extent is the content of jokes dependent on the biological sex of the candidates?
Theoretical Framework
Types of political satire
In Communication Science literature, there is a common distinction between two categories of political satire based on the level of aggressiveness of the ‘attack’ and the implicitness packed into the joke: Horatian satire and Juvenalian satire. These categories are borrowed from literary studies, where Horatian satire mimics the literary genre of comedy, and Juvenalian satire mimics the genre of tragedy (LaMarre, Landreville, Young & Gilkerson, 2014).
Horatian satire is usually characterized as a lighter and less serious form of humor, with an emphasis on entertainment (Boukes Boomgaarden, Moorman & de Vreese, 2015;
LaMarre et al, 2014). Jokes are mostly grounded in everyday, normal activities that may at first seem to be oriented towards self-satire, but in reality target society at a macro level (Holbert, Hmielowski, Jain, Lather & Morey, 2011). Horatian satire is meant to make
audiences laugh, rather than encourage them to think (LaMarre et al, 2014). Juvenalian satire, on the other hand, is more serious in tone and usually seen as more bitter, bordering on the cynical (Boukes et al, 2015; LaMarre et al, 2014). As a more aggressive form of humor, it is more acidic in tone – jokes are told to provoke indignation and convey a sense of urgency (Holbert et al, 2011; LaMarre et al, 2014).
This distinction between the two types of satire matters, because they differ in the ways in which audiences understand and process the joke. In studying political satire, Communication Scientists have focused on the effects of consuming political humor, including effects on political efficacy, knowledge generation, the relation to wider news consumption, and influences on more general democratic behavior (Arpan et al, 2011; Hill, 2013; Holbert, 2013). Overall, findings suggest that Juvenalian satire – theoretically speaking, with its more serious undertone – has a slightly stronger impact on audience agency than Horatian satire has (Balmas, 2014; Boukes, 2018; Boukes et al., 2015; Holbert, 2013; LaMarre et al, 2014; Rill & Cardiel, 2013).
Juvenalian satire’s stronger impact can be explained by the way in which the humor is processed. Both types of satire can only be understood if the audience has prior and/or contextual knowledge about the topic of the joke – but the depth of knowledge differs. Horatian satire, emphasizing entertainment over education, often relies on mimicry and ridicule rather than knowledge to deliver a joke, and is often targeted at stereotypical or physical traits (Holbert et al, 2011; Matthes & Rauchfleisch, 2013). Since it requires less knowledge from its audience, and these types of jokes are often perceived as ‘just a joke’, it is processed by message discounting (Nabi, Moyer-Guse & Byrne, 2007 as cited in LaMarre et al, 2014; Niven, Lichter & Amundson, 2003).
Juvenalian satire, on the other hand, emphasizes the educational aspect and is a more complex form of satire. It relies on a heavier cognitive load since it is often more implicit in nature, and leaves a bigger gap between what is said and what is meant (LaMarre et al, 2014). The type of processing that is associated with this type of satire is resource allocation, where viewers are expected to activate existing knowledge structures to decipher the message that
the comedian wants to convey (Nabi, Moyer-Guse & Byrne, 2007 as cited in LaMarre et al, 2014; Matthes & Rauchfleisch, 2013; Niven, Lichter & Amundson, 2003).
Content of political satire
The categorization into Horatian and Juvenalian satire is, thus, at the heart of academic research on political satire in Communication Science. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, the conceptual definition of the two types of satire has not been translated into an operational definition that allows for measurement of the concept – we know that Horatian and Juvenalian satire prioritize different aspects of satire, that the tone is different, and that they are
processed in different ways, but how do the two types of satire actually differ content wise?
There are a number of studies that examined the content of late-night political humor. Niven, Lichter and Amundson (2003) studied the political content of late-night comedy during the 2000 U.S. national election season by recording the target and subject of jokes targeting U.S. political figures in late-night hosts’ monologues, and found that prominent political figures were targeted more often, but also that jokes focused on the same personal features of each individual rather than issue positions.
Morris (2009) compared coverage of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart during the 2004 party conventions to assess whether the show was more critical of one side of the spectrum than the other by studying each joke’s target and tone of humor (categorized into complimentary, self-deprecating, physical, stereotypical, dismissive, policy, or character). The main finding was that candidates at each convention were ridiculed in different ways: whilst the majority of jokes exploited stereotypical understandings of the parties and those individuals associated with them, jokes about the Republican Convention were much harsher, focusing more on policy or character flaws, whereas jokes about the Democratic Convention emphasized physical traits (Morris, 2009).
Matthes and Rauchfleisch (2013) used the same categories as Morris (2009) in their study of political content of late-night comedy in the 2000 U.S. national election season on the Swiss late-night show Giacobbo/Müller and found that the majority of jokes about political figures dealt with physical appearance, rather than other issues such as policy, campaign, or even character (Matthes & Rauchfleisch, 2013).
Although each of these studies categorizes the content of late-night satire slightly differently, what they have in common is that they categorize jokes into those that focus on the individual
who is the target of the joke, for example by discussing their personality or character, and those that focus on the policies the targeted individuals stand for. What these studies do not do, however, is link these categories to the theoretical division between the Horatian or Juvenalian tradition that is so commonly used in research.
This paper departs from the viewpoint that since personality or character traits are easily ridiculed through mimicry, a technique inherent to Horatian satire, jokes that focus more on an individual’s personal characteristics are Horatian in nature; whereas jokes that focus on policy issues can be characterized as typical Juvenalian since audiences need to be more knowledgeable about the topic, and connect the dots for themselves, in order to understand this type of humor.
Gender bias in media coverage
The differences in focus on either personality or policy are important for another reason. Niven, Lichter and Amundson (2003) point out that previous studies have shown that the jokes in late night comedy were “overwhelmingly negative and targeted at the personal
characteristics of the candidates rather than on the issues” (Niven, Lichter & Amundson, 2003, p. 120), a finding that is supported by Matthes and Rauchfleisch’s (2013) conclusion that only 1 out of 10 jokes in late night comedy were issue-oriented. Personality matters, perhaps even more so in this year’s Democratic race since, with six women in the race, the 2020
Presidential Debates are more gender diverse than ever (Dittmar & Walsh, 2019).
Research has shown that there is a pattern of gendered media coverage of women in politics: female candidates receive relatively little attention compared to their male
counterparts, are often trivialized, and subject to common gender stereotypes and negative reporting (Meeks, 2016; Wasburn & Wasburn, 2011). In studying US commercial news media coverage on the campaigns of women running for high public office, Wasburn and Wasburn (2011) identified five characteristics:
“First, women candidates tend to receive less attention than do their male
counterparts … Second, more often than stories about male candidates, discussions of political women tend to focus on comparatively trivial subjects such as their physical appearance, lifestyle, and family rather than their positions on prominent campaign issues … Third, women tend to receive more negative coverage claiming that they lack the personality characteristics, experience and knowledge necessary for effective leadership in high public office … Fourth, to the extent that their issue positions are discussed, they will concern topics defined in American political culture as ‘woman’s
issues’ such as abortion, childcare, education and the environment, rather than ‘men’s issues’ such as the economy, national security and military affairs … Fifth, questions will be raised about the influence a woman candidate would have should she be elected” (Wasburn & Wasburn, 2011, p. 1027-1028).
These findings suggest that women candidates are likely to be hit twice as hard by political satirists, in the first place because satire tends to focus on personal characteristics, and because females are subject to extra scrutiny by the media in general.
Combining the above, this leads to the following hypotheses:
H1: Late-night satire spends more time on the personal characteristics of Democratic candidates (Horatian tradition) than on their policy views (Juvenalian tradition) H2: The time spent on personal characteristics (Horatian tradition) is higher for female Democratic candidates than for male Democratic candidates
Methods
This study relies on a content analysis to examine the differences in target and topic of the jokes about the 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates on a number of televised and/or online political satire shows. The shows included here are The Daily Show with Trevor Noah,
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, The Late Late Show with James Corden, The Tonight Show starring Jimmy Fallon, Late Night with Seth Meyers, Conan, and Jimmy Kimmel Live!
that air (almost) daily. On top of that, a number of shows that run once a week are included in the sample, too, since these often provide a more in-depth analysis of the current events. These shows are Patriot Act, Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, The Jim Jefferies Show, Last
Week Tonight with John Oliver, Saturday Night Live (SNL), and Real Time with Bill Maher.
Building on Baumgartner & Lockerbie (2018), this paper categorizes these 13 shows into different genres of broadcast political humor: fake news (The Daily Show, Late Night with
Seth Meyers’ segment A Closer Look, SNL’s weekly segment Weekend Update, Patriot Act, Full Frontal, Last Week Tonight and The Jim Jefferies Show), and late-night talk show
(monologues on The Late Show, The Late Late Show, Late Night, The Tonight Show, Conan,
Jimmy Kimmel Live!, and Real Time); and adds a category for Saturday Night Live’s comedy
sketches since this type of political humor does not fall into either the fake news or late-night monologue category.
A total of 12 official debates were announced by the Democratic National Committee, set to begin at the end of June 2019. However, given the timeframe of the thesis project and the fact that most (television) shows are on recess during the summer months, only the debates from September onwards were included in the sample in an attempt to include as many shows as possible in the analysis. Since not all shows air daily, a non-random sample was constructed by coding each month in the two weeks around the debate (the week prior to, and the week following the debate). For late-night talk shows the opening monologue was coded, for some shows a weekly segment (for example Weekend Update on SNL, A Closer Look on Late Night
with Seth Meyers or the 20-minute main story on Last Week Tonight), and for some it was an
entire episode (such as The Daily Show, or Real Time with Bill Maher that features a guest panel of political pundits that engage in discussion).
Data was accessed via each of the show’s official YouTube channel. In addition, since not the entire panel discussion for Real Time with Bill Maher is uploaded online, the full-hour podcast that is available in the Apple Store was used as an expansion to the show’s available videos.
A codebook was created in Qualtrics (see appendix A). Coding was done by a single trained coder who watched for moments in the show in which jokes were targeted at the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. The joke was the unit of analysis. The coder logged the name of the show, date of airing, genre of the show (news parody or fake news, late night talk show, or sketch comedy), target of the joke (name of presidential candidate), gender of the candidate (male/female), whether or not the joke targeted personal characteristics or policy proposals of the candidate (and if yes, coder logged which personal characteristics or policy issue), and the time (in seconds) dedicated to the joke. Following Matthes and Rauchfleisch (2013), jokes were identified as statements prompting audience laughter, separated by pauses for laughs. Since jokes were only coded if they targeted a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, who was mentioned by name, they were always either personal or policy-related or both simultaneously.
Intracoder reliability was assessed by recoding a subsample (n = 51) after four months. Using Krippendorf’s alpha (α) to account for different levels of measurement and chance agreement (Lombard Snyder-Duch & Bracken, 2002), all variables had α-levels of well over .67 and were deemed reliable (see Appendix B).
Table 1. Number of episodes per show, per month Number of shows per month
Name of show September October November December Total
The Daily Show 9 7 6 5 27
The Late Show with
Stephen Colbert 9 5 11 6 31
The Late Late Show
with James Corden 9 5 9 5 28
The Tonight Show
starring Jimmy Fallon 11 6 11 6 34
Late Night with Seth
Meyers 9 5 9 5 28
Conan 4 2 6 5 17
Jimmy Kimmel Live! 11 6 11 6 34
Patriot Act 1 0 2 2 5
Full Frontal with
Samantha Bee 2 0 2 1 5
The Jim Jefferies Show 1 3 2 0 6
Last Week Tonight with
John Oliver 2 1 1 0 4
Saturday Night Live 0 1 2 2 5
Real Time with Bill
Maher 2 2 1 0 5
Total episodes 70 46 70 43 229
This content analysis covers 229 episodes of 13 late-night shows across four months. Overall,
The Tonight Show starring Jimmy Fallon and Jimmy Kimmel Live! aired most frequently,
with 34 episodes each. Last Week Tonight with John Oliver aired the least number of times, with only 4 episodes in the sampling period. The Jim Jefferies Show and Last Week Tonight
with John Oliver did not make any jokes at all about the democratic presidential candidates
during the sampling period, and, just like Real Time with Bill Maher, aired their season finale in November. This, in combination with the typical scheduled break over the holiday season,
made December a relatively quiet month as all shows combined aired only 43 episodes whereas September and November were busier months with 70 episodes each.
Across this period, a total of N = 422 jokes were coded that targeted Democratic Presidential Candidates (see Table 2). Saturday Night Live targeted the Democratic
Presidential Candidates most often (21.6% of jokes), followed by The Late Show with Stephen
Colbert (20.6%) and The Daily Show (20.4%). Out of the 17 candidates, Joe Biden was
targeted most often by late-night satire shows (113 jokes, or 26.8%), followed by Bernie Sanders (91 jokes, 21.6%) and Pete Buttigieg (47 jokes, 11.1%). Interestingly, Andrew Yang, who reportedly struggled to attract media attention and received less speaking time across the debates than his fellow participating candidates (Hollar, 2020), was the target of as many jokes (n= 32) as top-contender Elizabeth Warren. Steve Bullock and Marianne Williamson were both targeted only once by late-night television (Bullock for his unpopularity among voters and low polling numbers, and Williamson for her spirituality and ‘hippie’-ness); and
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert proved to be the most ‘inclusive’ attacker, targeting 14
out of 17 democratic presidential candidates at least once over the span of four months.
The total time dedicated to these 422 jokes was 5.581 seconds (M = 13.23, SD = 12.36). The shortest jokes took only a second (two quick punches by Saturday Night Live, one about Pete Buttigieg’s name and one about Tom Steyer’s personal wealth), the longest period of time that was dedicated to delivering a joke was 120 seconds (a joke on Conan targeting Kamala Harris’ educational policy on school opening hours).
As mentioned above, jokes were only coded when they targeted a presidential candidate. Since a number of jokes focused on both personal and policy issues, a new categorical variable was created based on the questions in the codebook related to the focus of the joke, distinguishing between jokes that focus solely on personal characteristics, solely on the candidate’s policy issues, or on a combination of both.
Source Target The Daily
Show The Late Show The Late Late Show The Tonight Show
Late Night Jimmy Kimmel
Live!
Conan Patriot Act Full Frontal
Saturday Night Live
Real Time Total
Bennet 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Biden 15 26 4 10 6 19 2 3 1 21 6 113 Booker 4 6 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 5 1 19 Bullock 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Buttigieg 11 9 0 7 1 3 3 0 0 11 2 47 Castro 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 0 11 Delaney 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Gabbard 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 6 Harris 6 6 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 6 0 21 Klobuchar 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 7 0 13 Sanders 19 16 1 21 4 12 2 3 0 10 3 91 Steyer 4 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 12 Warren 7 4 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 14 2 32 Williamson 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Yang 16 7 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 3 1 32 O’Rourke 1 2 0 2 0 4 1 0 0 0 2 12 de Blasio 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Total 86 87 6 46 14 55 9 9 2 17
Results
In order to test H1: Late-night satire spends more time discussing personal characteristics than policy issues, and is therefore predominantly Horatian in nature, I conducted a one-way ANOVA with time in seconds as dependent variable, and joke focus as independent variable.
As Table 3 shows, the three groups that are compared here are not of equal size: the
overwhelming majority of jokes is focused on personal characteristics (n=324), whereas the category of policy-focused jokes (n=32) and the category of both personal and policy jokes (n=66) are remarkably smaller. Therefore, we cannot assume equal population variances, Levene’s F(2, 419) = 10.96, p < .001.
A one-way analysis of variance shows that the effect of the focus of the joke on time spent on the joke is statistically significant, F (2, 421) = 16.43, p < .001. This effect is weak, η²= .07 explaining a mere 7% of the variance in time spent on telling the joke.
Of the jokes focusing on personal characteristics, the average time spent is notably lower (M=11.40, SD = 9.99) than of the jokes focusing on policy issues (M=19.94,
SD=21.89). This mean difference (Mdif = -8.54) is statistically significant, p < .001, 95% CI
[-13.85, -3.23]. The time spent on personal characteristics is also lower than of jokes focusing on both personal and policy issues (M= 18.94, SD= 14.26). This mean difference (Mdif = -7.54) is statistically significant, too, p <.001, 95% CI [-11.41, -3.67]. There is no statistically significant difference between solely policy-focused or the combination of both personal and policy focused jokes with respect to the effect on time spent on telling the joke (Mdif = 1.00,
p = 1.00, 95% CI [-5.18, 7.18], suggesting that the inclusion of personal jokes into a
policy-focused joke does not alter the time dedicated to the joke.
Table 3. Focus of the joke targeting candidates
Focus of the joke Frequency %
Personal characteristics 324 76.8
Policy issues/views 32 7.6
Both personal and policy 66 15.6
This finding suggests that whilst the majority of jokes does focus on personal
characteristics, the actual time dedicated to each individual joke is actually shorter when it is focused on personal characteristics. Jokes about policy issues, or a combination of personal and policy issues take longer to tell. Yet, additional analysis indicated that the difference between the emphasis on personal characteristics and other joke foci was statistically
significant across all genres of late-night satire (news parody/fake news, late night talk show, and sketch comedy), χ2
(4) = 17.39, p = .002 (see Fig. 1), though the effect of genre on joke focus is very weak, τ = 0.02.
Figure 1. Frequency of joke focus by genre
Thus, the sheer volume of jokes focused on personal characteristics (n= 324) as opposed to jokes focusing on policy issues (n=32) or the combination of both (n=66) still results in more time dedicated to Horatian-style jokes about a presidential candidate’s personal characteristics: in total, 3.693,60 seconds are spent discussing personal
characteristics, whereas only 638,10 seconds are dedicated to discussing policy issues in late night jokes and jokes focusing on both personality- and policy-issues took up 1.250,04 seconds (see Fig. 2). For example, out of the 113 jokes targeting Joe Biden, 107 mentioned his personal characteristics (mostly his age), and only 6 jokes were focused on his policies (most notably his views on marijuana). Age was also the most prominent topic amongst jokes targeting Bernie Sanders (along with his rough voice and manner of speech), and only 4 out
65 8 26 188 22 25 71 2 15 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Personal characteristics Policy issues Both personal and policy
Frequency of joke focus by genre
of 91 jokes did not make references to the Vermont Senator’s personal characteristics (with 3 out of these 4 jokes discussing the senator’s healthcare initiatives). This means that H1 is accepted, albeit with caution given the violation of the assumption of equal group sizes.
Figure 2. Total time per joke focus
In order to test H2, that females receive more Horatian-style jokes about their personal characteristics than male candidates do, a chi-square test was conducted. The analysis (see Table 4) found no statistically significant association between the gender of the democratic presidential candidate and the focus of the joke, χ2
(2) = 1.18, p = .553. This association is positive, but extremely weak, τ = 0.001. An additional test that separated purely personality-focused jokes from the other jokes (either personality-focused on policy, or on both policy and personality simultaneously) also did not yield significant results, χ2
(1) = 0.18, p = .669. Again, this association is positive, but extremely weak, τ = 0.002.
Interestingly, though, when policy was mentioned in jokes targeting male candidates, the joke would be about specific policies such as health care, the Freedom Dividend (in jokes targeting candidate Andrew Yang), criminal justice, or the wealth tax. In the few jokes targeted towards female candidates that focused on policy issues, the majority of jokes was about Senator Elizabeth Warren’s multitude of plans and policies, or ‘having a plan for everything’. Nevertheless, the test found no significant difference between male and female
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Time in seconds
Total amount of time per joke focus
candidates with regards to the extent in which jokes focus on personal characteristics, and therefore H2 is rejected.
Table 4. Joke focus by gender (%)
Candidate gender
Joke focus Male Female Total
Personal characteristics 76.4 78.7 76.8
Policy issues 7.2 9.3 7.6
Both personal and policy 16.4 12.0 15.6
Total 100 100 100
N (347) (75) (422)
Discussion & conclusion
Linking the content of a joke to the type of satire is crucial in understanding how different types of satire have different effects, since it is the content that makes the difference.
In testing the first hypothesis, the results showed that late night satire indeed focuses more on personality traits than on policy issues. In line with the common Horatian/Juvenalian tradition, this finding indicates that most of the jokes in late-night satire are Horatian in nature – that is, the type of humor that theoretically does not have as much of a persuasive effect on audiences as Juvenalian satire does (Balmas, 2014; Boukes, 2018; Boukes et al., 2015; Holbert, 2013; LaMarre et al, 2014; Rill & Cardiel, 2013). This is not to say that extant research on the effects of consuming political satire was incorrect – rather, these findings support the oft-made point that late night political humor is not monolithic (Baumgartner & Lockerbie, 2018; Holbert et al, 2013): there are indeed different kinds of political humor. The result that the majority of jokes is actually Horatian in nature does not mean that there is no Juvenalian-style satire in late-night political humor: it merely suggests that complex and more persuasive Juvenalian satire is harder to come by. However, where scholars have ascribed these differences to the shows by differentiating between “[s]imple jokes told by Jimmy Fallon targeted at political actors in his opening monologue [and] the more complex satire of Seth Meyers in his “A Closer Look” segments [or] Trevor Noah on TDS…” (Baumgartner & Lockerbie, 2018, p. 1069; see also Holbert et al, 2013), this analysis showed that these
differences actually manifest themselves on the level of a single joke, not the show in which the joke is told since all shows focused more on personal characteristics in their jokes about Democratic presidential candidates. As Morris (2009) noted, “there can be a wide range of jokes that may take very different tones across a number of topics … It is the humorous comments that define the coverage” (Morris, 2009, p. 84). That is, the effects of consuming certain types of political satire should not be linked to certain outlets, since all political humor shows show a mix of both types of satire in their jokes – though simple Horatian-style jokes that focus on personal characteristics prevail.
Perhaps late-night talk shows and sketch comedy focus on simple jokes about personal characteristics because, as former Tonight Show-host Jay Leno explains, “The audience has to know what you’re talking about or else you’ll be sunk” (Niven, Lichter & Amundson, 2003, p. 121), implying that audiences are often not knowledgeable enough to process jokes that are more complex. In fake news/news satire shows, too, we find the emphasis on personal characteristics, perhaps because they mock mainstream, traditional media outlets that already have a personality-focused approach in a political system that is much more personalized than European politics is (Bennett, 2012; Littau & Stewart, 2015; Matthes & Rauchfleisch, 2013). Former Daily Show host Jon Stewart noted that “[t]he key to [late night political comedy] is reducing these guys to monosyllabic stereotypes” (Niven, Lichter & Amundson, 2003, 130), emphasizing how he sees the main role of comedians as entertaining an audience – even when political content is included in a fake news show, the focus lies on the entertainment value of that content since it is soft news, not hard news, after all (Arpan et al, 2011; Baumgartner & Morris, 2006).
The second hypothesis tested whether or not this emphasis on personality-focused jokes was contingent on gender, and showed no significant difference between male and female
candidates. This was unexpected, but perhaps can be ascribed to the normative definition of satire: just like objectivity is an ideal in journalism, satire should hold itself to the same standard – seeing all in power, regardless of political identification or gender, as equally worthy of ridicule if it is to stay true to their role of ‘equal opportunity attacker’ (Holbert, 2013). This means that in political satire, both men and women candidates should indeed be subject to an equal amount of personal attacks. From a societal point of view, this finding is a positive note that should be celebrated – not only because there actually were a number of female candidates who entered the race, but also because it suggests that differences between males and females are smaller than we thought they were. Yet, it must be noted that this only
goes for the current sampled moments in political satire, or politicotainment, and cannot be generalized to the wider media without further research.
Several other limitations to this study must be noted. First, this research was based on an arbitrary timeframe of only two weeks around each month’s debate in an effort to include all shows – both those that air daily and those that air once a week – in the sample throughout the sampling period. Yet, this means that all material outside this timeframe was not taken into consideration. Second, not all shows were on air all the time: for example, Patriot Act only returned to Netflix with a new season in late October, and Real Time with Bill Maher,
the Jim Jefferies Show and Last Week Tonight with John Oliver stopped airing half November.
In addition, some shows took a one-week break in October, and all shows were off air for Christmas. Third, the Democratic Debates were often overshadowed by coverage on President Trump’s impeachment trial, which started in October. Fourth, this study, like many others, focuses on U.S. late night political humor and findings are suited, but restricted, to this country’s broader sociopolitical system. Last, coding was done by a single trained coder, who proved to be consistent across time. However, adding another coder, trained or untrained, to the analysis may have resulted in different interpretations and different results.
Despite these limitations, this study made a contribution to the field of political
communication. By manually coding 13 popular late-night political humor shows this paper made the first step in bridging the gap between the conceptual and operational definition of the concepts of Horatian and Juvenalian satire. As such, it should be seen as a starting point for further research that focuses on the persuasive effects of consuming political satire, emphasizing the attention that needs to be dedicated to the joke as a unit of analysis.
Given this year’s diverse pool of presidential candidates, this current study analyzed the difference between male and female candidates. One can only hope that future studies are able to draw from similarly gender diverse groups; but future research could also consider examining the differences between established and new candidates and whether the content of a joke is dependent on a candidate’s prominence. As long as especially young voters continue to state that they learn about politics and candidates by watching late night comedy (Arpan et al, 2011), it remains worthy of studying – further development of a robust operationalization of content in both Horatian and Juvenalian satire and a typology of political humor will help scholars better understand what type of content exactly affects audiences political knowledge, understanding, or even participation more broadly (Holbert, 2005).
References
Arpan, L., Bae, B., Chen, Y., & Greene, G. (2011). Perceptions of bias in political content in late night comedy programs. Electronic News, 5(3), 158–173. DOI:
10.1177/1931243111421765
Bailey, R. (2018). When journalism and satire merge: The implications for impartiality, engagement and ‘post-truth’ politics – A UK perspective on the serious side of US TV comedy. European Journal of Communication, 33(2), 200-213. DOI:
10.1177/0267323118760322
Baumgartner, J., & Lockerbie, B. (2018). Maybe it is more than a joke: Satire, mobilization, and political participation. Social Science Quarterly, 99(3), 1060–1074. DOI:
10.1111/ssqu.12501
Baumgartner, J. & Morris, J. S. (2006). The Daily Show effect: Candidate evaluations, efficacy, and American youth. American Politics Research, 34(3), 341-367. DOI: 10.1177/1532673X05280074
Bennett, W. (2012). The Personalization of Politics: Political Identity, Social Media, and Changing Patterns of Participation. The Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, 644, 20–39. DOI: 10.1177/0002716212451428
Boukes, M., Boomgaarden, H.G., Moorman, M. & de Vreese , C. H. (2015). At Odds:
Laughing and Thinking? The Appreciation, Processing and Persuasiveness of Political Satire. Journal of Communication, 65, 721-744. DOI: 10.1111/jcom.12173
Boukes, M. (2018). The Causes and Consequences of Affinity for Political Humor. In J. Baumgartner & A. Becker (Eds.), Laughing (Still) Matters: The Next Generation of
Political Humor Research (pp. 207-232). Lanham (MD): Lexington.
Brewer, P. R. & Marquardt, E. (2007). Mock news and democracy: Analyzing The Daily Show. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 15(4), 249-267. DOI:
10.1080/15456870701465315
Burns, A., Flegenheimer, M., Lee, J. C., Lerer, L. & Martin, J. (2019, December 3). Who’s running for president in 2020? The New York Times. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/2020-presidential-candidates.html
Dittmar, K. & Walsh, D. (2019, June 25). The gender diversity in the debates will be unprecedented. Here’s what it’ll tell us. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gender-diversity-in-the-debates-will- be-unprecedented-heres-what-itll-tell-us/2019/06/25/7e7ea02a-9387-11e9-aadb-74e6b2b46f6a_story.html
Faina, J. (2012). Public journalism is a joke: The case for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
Journalism, 14(4), 541-555. DOI: 10.1177/1464884912448899
Jones, J. P. & Baym, G. (2010) A dialogue on satire news and the crisis of truth in
postmodern political television. Journal of Communication, 34(3), 278-294. DOI: 10.1177/0196859910373654
Hill, M. R. (2013). Developing a normative approach to political satire: a critical perspective.
International Journal of Communication, 7, 324-337. Retrieved from
Holbert, R. L. (2005). A typology for the study of entertainment television and politics.
American Behavioral Scientist, 49(3), 436-453. DOI: 10.1177/0002764205279419
Holbert, R. L. (2013). Developing a normative approach to political satire: an empirical perspective. International Journal of Communication, 7, 305-323. Retrieved from https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc
Holbert, R. L., Hmielowski, J., Jain, P., Lather, J., & Morey, A. (2011). Adding nuance to the study of political humor effects: Experimental research on juvenalian satire versus horatian satire. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(3), 187–211. DOI:10.1177/ 0002764210392156.
Holbert, R. L., Tchernev, J. M., Walther, W. O., Esralew, S. E. & Benski, K. (2013). Young voter perceptions of political satire as persuasion: A focus on perceived influence, persuasive intent, and message strength. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media,
57(2), 170-186. DOI: 10.1080/08838151.2013.787075
Hollar, J. (2020, January 7). The media are ignoring Andrew Yang | Opinion. Newsweek. Retrieved from newsweek.com/media-ignoring-andrew-yang-opinion-1480910
Jalalzai, F. (2006). Women candidates and the media: 1992-2000 elections. Politics & Policy,
34(3), 606-633. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-1346.2006.00030.x
Jones, J. P. (2010). Entertaining politics: Satiric television and political engagement (2nd ed.).
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
LaMarre, H. L., Landreville, K. D., Young, D. & Gilkerson, N. (2014). Humor works in funny ways: Examining satirical tone as a key determinant in pollical humor message
processing. Mass Communication and Society, 17(3), 400-423. DOI: 10.1080/15205436.2014.891137
Littau, J. & Stewart, D. R. (2015). “Truthiness”. And second-level agenda setting: Satire news and its influence on perceptions of television news credibility. Electronic News, 9(2), 122-136. DOI: 10.1177/1931243115581416
Lombard, M., Snyder‐Duch, J., & Bracken, C. (2002). Content Analysis in Mass Communication: Assessment and Reporting of Intercoder Reliability. Human
Communication Research, 28(4), 587–604. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00826.x
Matthes, J. & Rauchfleisch, A. (2013). The Swiss “Tina Fey Effect”: The content of late-night political humor and the negative effects of political parody on the evaluation of
politicians. Communication Quarterly, 61(5), 596-614. DOI: 10.1080/01463373.2013.822405
Meddaugh, P. M. (2010). Bakhtin, Colbert, and the center of discourse: Is there no “truthiness” in humor? Critical Studies in Media Communication, 27(4), 376-390. DOI: 10.1080/15295030903583606
Michaud Wild, N. (2015). Dumb vs. Fake: Representations of Bush and Palin on Saturday Night Live and Their Effects on the Journalistic Public Sphere. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59(3), 494–508. DOI:
Meeks, L. (2016). Gendered styles, gendered differences: Candidates’ use of personalization and interactivity on Twitter. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(4), 295–310. DOI: 10.1080/19331681.2016.1160268
Morris, J. (2009). The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and audience attitude change during the 2004 party conventions. Political Behavior, 31(1), 79–102. DOI: 10.1007/s11109-008-9064-y
Niven, D., Lichter, S. R. & Amundson, D. (2003). The political content of late night comedy.
Press/Politics, 8(3), 118-133. DOI: 10.1177/1081180X03252915
Rill, L. A. & Cardiel, C. L. B. (2013). Funny, ha-ha: the impact of user-generated political satire on political attitudes. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(12), 1738-1756. DOI: 10.1177/0002764213489016
Simpson, P. (2003). On the discourse of satire: Toward a stylistic model of satirical humor. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Wasburn, P. C. & Wasburn, M. H. (2011). Media coverage of women in politics: The curious case of Sarah Palin. Media, Culture & Society, 33(7), 1027-1041. DOI:
10.1177/0163443711415744
Young, D. G. (2008). The privileged role of the late-night joke: Exploring humor's role in disrupting argument scrutiny. Media Psychology, 11(1), 119-142. DOI:
Appendix A. Codebook Type of source
• The Daily Show with Trevor Noah • The Late Show with Stephen
Colbert
• The Late Late Show with James Corden
• The Tonight Show starring Jimmy Fallon
• Late Night with Seth Meyers • Jimmy Kimmel Live!
• Conan • Patriot Act
• Full Frontal with Samantha Bee • The Jim Jefferies Show
• Last Week Tonight with John Oliver
• Saturday Night Live • Real Time with Bill Maher
What is the date? _________
What is the genre of the show? • News parody/fake news • Late night talk show
• Sketch comedy • N/A
Target of the joke • Michael Bennet • Joe Biden • Cory Booker • Stephen Bullock • Peter Buttigieg • Julian Castro • John Delaney • Tulsi Gabbard • Kamala Harris • Amy Klobuchar
• Bernie Sanders • Thomas Steyer • Elizabeth Warren • Marianne Williamson • Andrew Yang • Beto O’Rourke • Tim Ryan • Bill de Blasio
Gender of the candidate • Male
• Female
Does the joke target the personal characteristics of the candidate? • No
• Yes,
_________________________________
Does the joke target the policy proposals of the candidate? • No
• Yes,
_________________________________
How many seconds are dedicated to the joke? ________________
Appendix B. Reliability for coded items
Variable name Krippendorff’s α
Source 1.00
Date 1.00
Genre of the show .96
Target of the joke 1.00 Gender of the candidate 1.00 Focus on personal characteristics .77
Focus on policy proposals .88
