Erasmus Mundus Master of Arts
Journalism, Media and Globalisation
GRAB THEM BY THE POLICIES:
A Comparative Analysis of the 45
thUS Presidential
Election Coverage in the Late Night Television Comedy
by
Saltanat Ibraeva
Student ID: 11300450
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s programme Communication Science
Supervisor/Examiner: dhr. Mark Boukes
Date of completion: June 1, 2017
Abstract
Late night television comedy, as a modern representation of political satire, “scratches an itch” of not only audience, but also of media sphere and politicians. With Donald Trump running for presidency, the world turned upside down, giving comedians more content to make jokes about. The current study is designed to investigate theoretical ground of political satire as a genre, by setting conceptual foundation for late night television comedy. This research conducts quantitative content analysis aimed to examine commentaries of the three different types of broadcast political satire shows: news parody, late night talk show, and sketch comedy and their coverage of the 45th US Presidential Elections. Specifically, the following US broadcast shows were chosen to fit the criteria of variety and differences in genre: The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, and Saturday Night Live. Quantitative analysis proved broadcast satire sub-genres to be statistically
different in the proportion and distribution of jokes among different groups of political targets. However, additional finding reveals that content of the three shows is significantly based on pre-existing knowledge. The study facilitates the field of content analysis in the genre of political satire, providing an important base for the future studies and experiments on the effects of satire.
Introduction
For the past few decades, entertainment programming has been increasingly providing humorous commentary on political issues, becoming an alternative news source (Abel & Barthel, 2013; Haigh & Heresco, 2010). This caused a surge of research and studies
investigating the effects of the late night commentary, comedy, and parody shows on viewers’ attitude towards political agenda (Young, 2004, 2008, 2013; Dagnes, 2012; Boukes et al. 2015, Matthes & Rauchfleisch, 2013; Compton, 2008 etc.). However, the field of political satire is still lacking studies analyzing precisely the content of the late night comedy shows (Haigh & Heresco, 2010; Morris, 2008; Fox, Koloen, & Sahin, 2007). Motivated by scholarly misbalance, current research has grown to advance the understanding of what there is in the satirical content. Evidence indicates that satire TV shows not only have a potential to educate and inform viewers about political agenda, but also may stimulate interest in citizens
disengaged from politics in general (Morris, 2008; Jones, 2005; Young and Tisinger, 2006). Satirical content in the broadcast media made a significant turn: According to Jones and Baym the relationship between the news and consumers used to have one direction, from those who are sitting in the studio, to “us” – regular citizens, with no face and voice, watching the news at home (2010). In contrast, satire consumers more actively engage with information by responding to commentary, news, or parody with laughter. However, there is more than just laughter as an effect of satire. Numerous studies reveal and investigate various ways satire can have an effect on consumers (Young, 2004, 2008, 2013; Dagnes, 2012; Boukes et al. 2015, Matthes & Rauchfleisch, 2013; Compton, 2008 etc.). The effects are differentiated and classified as follows: attitudes and opinion, cynicism and engagement, processing, understanding, and affinity, knowledge and learning (Becker & Waisanen, 2013; Young, 2004; Compton, 2016; Balmas, 2014; Compton, 2008).
satire shows’ audience is significantly represented by youth from 18 to 30 years old, and largely growing since 1996 (Compton, 2008; Young, 2004; Abel & Barthel, 2013). The audience reports itself to be learning about presidential candidates and campaigning from the late night shows (Compton, 2008). However, in a study of demographics and socio-political characteristics of the audience, Young (2004) discovered that these surveys are based on self-reported learning, rather than "on a correlation of exposure with actual knowledge gain". Thus, Young stresses that these measures "should be considered measures of perceived rather than actual learning" (2004). At the same time, the Pew research suggests that young and politically uninformed citizens consider the late night satire shows as sources of political information (Compton, 2008; Young, 2004). Incorporated into the mainstream information environment, it is becoming hard to distinguish and differentiate between the real news and entertainment content (Baym, 2005; Niven, Lichter, & Amundson, 2003). So, this study aims to answer the following research question: What is the information that satire offers and how does the humor deliver substantive and political content?
The concept of satire originates in Ancient Greece and has evolved in number of ways (Baumgarther & Morris, 2008; Lerner, 1990; Branham, 2009). It is still a performance of an authority opposition, however staged on broadcast it takes various forms and shapes. Modern, and yet traditional, political satire (Holbert, 2005) is presented in the late night television comedy (Compton, 2008) and differentiated with following political sub-genres: news parody, late night talk show, and sketch comedy shows. Previous studies on political satire usually focus on specific shows familiar to the viewers, ignoring conceptual differences between them (i.e. Becker & Waisanen, 2013). Current study applies this classification for the analysis, providing a more comprehensive perspective on the nature of the shows before comparing their content. This makes current study more scientifically relevant for the field of political satire: Not only does this research make a major contribution to the understanding of
satire’s content, but also sets a stronger theoretical and conceptual ground for further studies, which in turn leads to a societal relevance. The study may serve as a new point on
understanding the effects of satire consumption: to what extent late night television comedy provide political information and in which ways?
Having these points in mind, I pursue an empirical analysis of American broadcast satire shows, precisely studying their content in the middle of an electoral campaign. I start by setting theoretical ground in defining satire and establishing the forms it takes in the broadcast media. As a case study for the analysis, I chose the recent Presidential Elections of the United States and its candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The analysis is precisely aimed at the coverage of political targets, candidates, and media. I proceed with methodology of the research, followed by data collection and discussion based on the results of analysis. I expose the differences between the satire shows by revealing the proportion of substantive matter they provide during the election coverage.
Theoretical Framework Satire as an Ancient Form of Art
Origins of satire root back in the Ancient Greek (satyr) and Roman (satura) societies, where it was perceived as an artful political critique and even as a certain form of magic (Baumgarther & Morris, 2008; Lerner, 1990; Branham, 2009). A satirist was equated to a magician as he was the one “to be regarded with awe, with reverence and with fear” (Caufield, 2008, p.5). To illustrate, legal penalties for “magical incantations” proposed by Plato also included satire. It was believed to be a “gift to ward off evil by harnessing the magical powers of words,” Caufield notes (2008, p.6). In his book, “The Power of Satire”, author Robert Elliot presents a deeper analysis of the concept of satire through the prism of rituals and magic: “[A magician/satirist] uses his powers to enhance the well-being of society
– defending it from its enemies, coercing the powers of nature into favorable performance, enriching the inner life of society through ritualistic ceremony, etc.” (2008, p.6)
The magic ritual Elliot is referring to is actually the process of exposing the audience to the critique, which draws laughter: Satirists engaged the audience using a combination of wit, humor, and playfulness (Caufield, 2008). Satire as a form of genre, art, critique, or even magic, is a very complex and fundamentally different material than just humor (Baumgartner & Morris, 2008b). It is explained by the fact that satire contains two messages: direct and indirect (or explicit and implicit by Holbert, 2005; Gruner in Baumgartner & Morris, 2008b). Satire is believed to be a platform delivering substantive political information (Fox, Koloen, & Sahin, 2007; Holbert, 2016) via absurd representations of reality (Baumgartner & Morris, 2008b; Baym, 2005b; Baym & Jones, 2012; Buijen & Valkenburg, 2004; Haigh & Heresco, 2010; Meddaugh, 2010; Painter & Hodges, 2010; Wild, 2015). But symbiosis of substance and absurdity in one matter is not the only distinguishing feature of satire. According to Test, satire consists of four key elements, which are the following: attack, judgement, play and laughter (Caufield, 2008).
Four elements
Firstly, attack, or aggression, is probably the most recognizable trait of satire. This function can also be referred to as deconstructing one (Jones & Baym, 2010; Baym & Jones, 2012). To illustrate, satire confronts authority structures and the status quo (Coletta, 2009) through ridicule and shocking: Mocking existing notions of reality, satire demolishes what society is used to believe in. For this matter, satirists are often described negatively and equated to cynical nihilists (Jones & Baym, 2010). However, Jones and Baym believe that accusations towards satirists (e.g. Stewart and Colbert) on breeding cynicism in regard to media, politicians, and politics in general, are not justified on logical grounds (2010). Indeed,
satirists are attacking “people, institutions, and processes that populate the social system they inhabit” (Caufield, 2008, p.7), but attack is only the form of message. It’s not just the
aggression that matters, as it comes together with other ingredients.
A second trait of satire, hence, is judgement. In symbiosis with attack, judgement becomes critique. As mentioned above, satire has a wide range of targets – this way or
another related to authorities – which are attacked with judgement. Despite the common belief that satirists focus on a target’s folly, vice, and sin (Holbert, 2016; Coletta, 2009), in reality they are concerned about delivering an important critique. Basically, satire is reflecting society as a mirror allowing the counterpart see absurdity of the reflection (Coletta, 2009). Young and Tisinger stated that satire not only detects inconsistences in political rhetoric, but also discloses them to the public, revealing the gap between what it is and ought to be (2006). Thus, to a certain extent, satirists are optimists, who are trying to improve wrongdoings (Coletta, 2009) and “fix society’s broken pieces” (Caufield, 2008, p.8).
Thirdly, despite its aggressive and judging form, satire is also an artful interaction with the audience (Caufield, 2008). Satirists are not only attacking, but also playing: They are pulling audiences into the aggressive judgement by entertaining them in various ways (Day & Thompson, 2012). In a way, satire is a theatrical platform: Satirists present their parody on reality, playing familiar figures, situations, and events. But at the same time, satire is a playground, where the audience is invited to take participation. Satire consumers in here, however, play themselves in this reality distortion: They are given an opportunity to develop not only their perception of politics as a whole, but rather their understandings of citizenship, political participation, and civic engagement (Jones, 2010 in Holbert, 2016).
Finally, laughter is the essential element explaining the audience’s engagement with satire. It sets a tone where satirist and satire can have an authentic democratic exchange (Jones and Baym, 2010). In this tone, satire “cures” the wounds it made while attacking in the
first place. In times of hyperpartisan, disruptive and divisive political moments, laughter is the central ingredient turning serious conversation [between satirist and satiree] to an antidote of absurdity (Jones & Baym, 2010). Bakhtin referred to laughter as “a form of resistance to power” (1981 in Baym & Jones, 2012, p.4). In the end, laughter combines all the previous traits, making the attack more accessible to the audience, in such a way as to be “opening them to judgement that they may otherwise be unwilling to accept” (Caufield, 2008, p.9). Young states, that audience’s role in the “play” with satirist is to determine the true and implicit meaning behind the jokes (2003 in Holbert, 2005).
The Fifth Element
Some studies, however, stress that there is more in satire than just aggression,
judgement, play and laughter. Satire is believed to demand knowledge (Caufield, 2008; Haigh & Heresco, 2010; Boukes, et al., 2015; Young, 2013; Young & Tisinger, 2006). Scholars argue that satire consumers have to already obtain a certain level of knowledge in order to consume and understand the message, otherwise there is a “risk being left out of the joke” (Caufield, 2008). Simply saying, satire consumer must be able to read between the lines to “get” the joke (Jones & Baym, 2010; Young and Tisinger, 2006; Haigh & Heresco, 2010). Laughter generated from knowledge and comprehension of the message is a satirical feature. The opposite – laughing without careful inspection of claims – is simply agreeing with the player and/or his content (Becker & Waisanen, 2013). It becomes a banal or original form humor – aimed to amuse and evoke laughter (Weitz in Becker & Waisanen, 2013). Thus, a good satire requires equally a “good” audience: The satirist pulls into the experience of satire, but lets the audience reach the conclusion by themselves. (Caufield, 2008).
So, we may conclude that satire is not only a tool of entertainment, but also of education. However, reaching this ideal combination of satirical traits is a complex task.
Looking at all the elements satire needs, we may also distinguish two of its most dominant and simple forms: horatian and juvenalian (Holbert, Hmielowski, Jain, Lather, & Morey, 2011). These two concepts can be identified through the framework of “traditional dichotomy of tragedy versus comedy” (Holbert et al., 2011, p.191). To illustrate, on the micro-level, satire is evidently an ironic substance, ridiculing and/or shaming the very being of reality (Caufield, 2008; Compton, 2008; Holbert et al., 2011). This is a form of comedy, or horatian satire. However, on a broader sense, we identified that satire aims to challenge the citizenry, provokes them to reveal the absurdity of existing reality and search beyond it (Compton, 2008; Baym & Jones, 2012; Holbert, 2005). Satire critiques and wounds its audience, causing tragedy (Holbert et al, 2011). This form is related to juvenalian satire. The existence of political agenda in the satire shows is known and often referred to; however, what precisely the content is, has mainly been left out of studies (Niven et al., 2003). This is what this study aims to do.
Political Satire in the American Broadcast
Satire has been an important part of the American media for many years and evolved in number of unexpected ways. To name just a few, Holbert (2005) provided a wide range of satirical sub-genres from fictional political dramas (e.g. The West Wing) to reality shows (e.g. America’s Most Wanted). Even cartoons like The Simpsons, Furutama, and South Park are stated to be containing political agenda: Besides explicit storyline, animated situation comedies implicitly provide political commentaries veiled in the irony of a situation or story in general (Holbert, 2005; Caufield, 2008; Baumgartner & Morris, 2008). These shows project questions of politics through the everyday societal, family, and school issues, which is already a political statement in itself (Compton, 2008; Holbert, 2005). Their distortion of reality is based on creating a new absurd reality with characters and issues familiar to us.
Identifying sub-genres allows us to narrow the definition of satire: As explained in the theoretical section, the concept in itself is very broad and can be defined in many ways. Thus, to investigate how substantive and relevant political satire is as a humor genre, or whether it is a pure comedy or a smart tragedy, we should clarify and focus on broadcast sub-genres, which openly deliver political messages or commentaries. In the framework of current study, we identified three different types of humorous political genre that can be found on the US broadcast platforms, and are classified as traditional satire by Holbert (2005) or as late night television comedy by Compton (2008): news parody, late night talk show, and sketch comedy shows.
News Parody Show
Broadcast news is a primary source of political information, which is why a parody on news is a perfectly staged satire on political reality. Apart from evident and intended
similarity to regular news – opening visuals, the anchor-man at the desk, special
correspondents – news parody delivers critical analysis of everyday real news: It examines both the information and the agendas “that lie behind or beneath” the news (Baym & Jones, 2012, p.5), and via humorous means, it makes the absurdity of reality more digestible for consumers. This satirical sub-genre ultimately attacks journalists, media newsrooms, and, of course, politicians, providing critical judgement on their professional failures. The most popular shows among American audience in this sub-genre are: The Daily Show with Trevor Noah (formerly with Jon Stewart), Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, and already closed project of Comedy Central, The Colbert Report.
The Daily Show (TDS) is one of the most recognizable and extensively researched broadcast satire platforms. Appearing on Comedy Central, TDS was intended by its creators simply to amuse and make people laugh (Baym, 2005; Morris, 2008). Former host, Jon
Stewart, and producers of the program labelled their work as “fake news,” leading numbers of scholars and studies identifying it in such a way. However, nowadays this term is widely used in regard to the falsification of information presented by media. Which is why, in this
research, I categorize TDS as “news parody” sub-genre under political satire to avoid any misunderstanding.
Confrontations with existing authorities made the show popular among young citizens in the US, who are continuously reported to be learning about political issues, campaigns and candidates from the show (Baym, 2005; Baym, 2008; Jones & Baym, 2010; Fox, Koloen, & Sahin, 2007; Young, 2004). The success of TDS made a serious turn in the perception of satirists. In 2009, the Time Magazine conducted a poll among its readers on who is the most trustworthy and reliable newsperson – the winner was Jon Stewart, a comedian who never studied and trained for journalism (Young, 2004; Dagnes, 2012). At the same time, Jon Stewart and the TDS crew never claimed or asked for recognition of their legitimacy as the news source. Instead, they continuously defame their own credibility, which according to Morris, has a backlash effect and makes the show more trustworthy for the citizenry (2008).
Late Night Talk Show
The second satirical sub-genre we specify in the framework of American broadcast media is the late night talk show. Talk show is widely popular format present on different network channels (NBC, CBS, ABC, etc.) and are available in 15 million more homes than news parodies such as TDS or The Colbert Report, because these are aired on cable channels (i.e. Comedy Central; Haigh & Heresco, 2010). Late night talk shows follow the same
template and are called similar: The Late Show, The Late Night, The Tonight Show, The Late Late Show, and alike with addition of the host name: David Letterman, Jay Leno, Jimmy Fallon, James Cordon or Jimmy Kimmel. The satirical content of shows is mostly amusement
via play and laughter rather than critical assessments of reality: These shows are based on games and interviews with celebrities (Haigh & Heresco, 2010). However, late night talk shows usually start with an opening monologue, where the host provides a humorous recap of the day’s events and agenda (Haigh & Heresco, 2010).
The satirical or substantive feature of the late night talk shows has been argued and disputed by scholars. Jokes in the late night shows are aggressive and attack without required critical judgement (Caufield, 2008); thus, lacking educative and informative potential for viewers. Scholars believe that opening monologues are rarely related to political issues or policy stands, and more reminds a form of offensive mockery of targeted personalities (Compton, 2008; Niven, Lichter, & Amundson, 2003; Caufield, 2008; Haigh & Heresco, 2010; Young, 2004). To illustrate, late night shows’ monologues tended to contain jokes about George W. Bush, but switched their target to Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and terrorists in general, following the 9/11 events (Haigh & Heresco, 2010; Baumgartner & Morris, 2008). The nature of the late night monologues was put in question, when Jay Leno said on April 23, 2003: “Well, it looks like the war with Iraq is just about over. Our troops are coming home, which is great news, cause now—you know what that means? Now we can start making fun of Bush again” (Haigh & Heresco, 2010, p. 159).
Scholars conclude that content of the late night shows often depends on the political mood of the citizenry: It reflects what the audience wants, changing its tone and the agenda delivered (Niven, Licher, & Amundson, 2003; Haigh & Heresco, 2010). For example, at the beginning of the invasion in 2003, 70% of Americans supported the war in Iraq (Haigh & Heresco, 2010). Meanwhile, the tone of the jokes among the late night talk shows were from neutral to positive (Haigh & Heresco, 2010). However, in the course of the war's
development, public support declined, leading late night talk shows’ monologues to contain more negatively toned jokes towards the war efforts by the US government (Williams et al.,
2004 in Haigh & Heresco, 2010). So, if parody news is aimed at critiquing and questioning existing agenda, late night shows, on the contrary, set their own agenda based on audience needs and interests.
Sketch Comedy Show
News parody and late night talk shows, however, are not the first satirical sub-genres on the US media landscape. Airing for more than 40 years now, Saturday Night Live (SNL) is referred to as a “grandparent” of the late night television (Compton, 2016). It holds the format known as a sketch comedy. This sub-genre represents itself a series of different short comedy scenes, usually performed by the same group of comic actors or comedians. Shows related to this sub-genre are Little Britain, Inside Amy Schumer, Portlandia. As for SNL, the show is performed on a theatrical stage every Saturday, broadcasted live on television and became a significant part of the US political discourse (Day & Thompson, 2012; Compton, 2016; Holbert, 2005).
Although, SNL presents new comical skits every week, it also holds the most iconic and recognizable news parody segment Weekend Update. Studies reveal, that despite Update’s format similarity to TDS or The Colbert Report, the content is significantly different. According to Day and Thompson (2012), anchormen of the Update sets political tone of the whole show, which is claimed to be not so political in the end. To demonstrate, the very first Update host Chevy Chase would open the segment while having a sexual
conversation on the phone, pretending he is unaware being on air (Day and Thompson, 2012). From Chase in the mid 1970s, up until Colin Qiunn in the end of 1990s, scholars found the humor of the show lacking a satirical critique of the news agenda, and represents the most primitive and banal form of political humor, without any attack or judgement towards political issues, instead offering only amusement and laughter (Compton, 2008; Compton,
2016; Day & Thompson, 2012; Baym & Jones, 2012; Wild, 2015; Dagnes, 2012). However, starting from 2000, both the Update segment and the SNL as a whole, seemingly started changing and/or gaining political orientation (Compton, 2010; Day & Thompson, 2012). After having a prolonged turn of mild and banal jokes barely related to politics or media and loosing viewership ratings (Day & Thompson, 2012), the executive producer of the show, Lorne Michaels, changed the Update’s hosts, giving them contrasting roles to play. The show presented political humor delivered by amiable, goofy Jimmy Fallon and nerdy, but politically invested Tina Fey (Day & Thompson, 2012). The latter became a recognizable satirist among scholars, not only because she finally set critical tone in the Update news segment, but also because she impersonated vice-president nominee Sarah Palin from the Republican Party in the 2008 Presidential elections.
SNL staged a parody on the interview of Sarah Palin with Katie Couric, played by Fey and Amy Poehler respectively. The skit became a cornerstone of the political agenda. Fey’s impersonation was labelled as Tina Fey effect and defined as “a negative effect on the
evaluation of political leaders” (Esralew and Young, 2012; Young, 2011). Palin was parodied as being ignorant to policies and incompetent political actor, and Fey along with SNL are believed to be partly responsible for the journalistic sphere turning opinion against Palin (Wild, 2015; Abel and Barthel, 2013). Ever since, SNL significantly intervened the political agenda, providing more aggressive, but at the same time fairly critical content (Day & Thompson, 2012; Caufield, 2008) both with its news segment and comedy skits, parodying political debates, events, and figures.
Research Question and Hypotheses
Various scholars note that late night shows rarely focus on policies, instead providing humorous and overwhelmingly negative content on personality traits and characteristics of
politicians (Baumgartner & Morris, 2006; Matthes & Rauchfleisch, 2013; Young, 2004; Niven, Lichter, & Amundson, 2003). From 1996 to 2000, only around 10% of the jokes per year in the late night talk shows were policy and issue oriented (Niven et al., 2003). Thus, the latter calls into question: How can political humor be informative? The current study aims to examine political commentaries of the three satirical sub-genres in regard to the 45th
Presidential Elections of the United States and its candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
Taking into account horatian and juvenalian forms of satire, we may specify that the more satire contains critical information about policies and issues, the more educative it is, and thus can be classified as juvenalian satire. Hence, if satire concentrates its jokes on the personal traits and failures, it belongs to the horatian or comedic form, aimed to simply entertain its audience rather educate it. Having this, the Research Question for the study can be set:
RQ1: What is the proportion of jokes targeting personality traits and policy issues during the final stage of the US 45th Presidential Elections in, respectively, parody news, late night talk show, and sketch comedy show?
Substantive Issues
The primary aim of the study is to identify the frequency and intensity of jokes targeting both personal characteristics and policy issues of the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees. Considering the nature of the news parody sub-genre, we may expect it to contain more substantive jokes than the other sub-genres (i.e., late night talk show and sketch comedy show). To demonstrate, parodying real news, TDS delivers informative examination of news agenda and politics itself (Compton, 2008; Baym & Jones, 2012; Baym, 2005; Baym, 2008; Caufield, 2008; Young, 2004). By attacking and judging presidential
candidates, government officials, and biggest newsrooms of the US, news parody is intended to analyze and critique socio-political order, rather than just to entertain (Jones & Baym, 2010; Baym & Jones, 2012; Compton, 2008; Painter & Hodges, 2010).
As for the late night talk show, when talking about politics, monologues usually attack personalities, rather than providing critical assessment and judgement of their issues and policies (Niven, Lichter, & Amundson, 2003; Caudield, 2008). Their jokes are based on pre-existing stereotypes about politicians, rather than their professional qualifications
(Baumgartner and Morris, 2008b). Meanwhile, with the news parody segment, SNL has a potential to be more issue oriented than the late night talk show. Moreover, SNL is favored by the American viewers due to its parodying skits of political events and debates, especially during presidential elections (Caufield, 2008; Day & Thompson, 2012; Compton, 2016). With the explosion of Tina Fey effect, sketch comedy may be holding a stronger substantive
orientation than The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.
Specifying characteristics of each sub-genre, a hierarchy of substantive content may be expected that results in the following hypothesis:
H1: The content of sketch comedy show is more politically substantive and policy-oriented than the late night talk show, but less issue policy-oriented than the news parody sub-genre.
Political Bias
Following the pattern of claims found in previous studies, where satire is perceived to be liberal (Dagnes, 2012; Day & Thompson, 2012; Baym & Jones, 2012; Morris, 2008), we may also pursue whether there is a certain bias in the content of the shows towards
Democratic or Republican parties, and whether this differs between the three satire genres. Following Jon Stewart’s rejection of the liberalist tag about the nature of TDS (Baym, 2005)
and the nature of sub-genre (i.e., reflecting the objectively-assumed news), one may expect that news parody must be critical towards all the authorities, including candidates and party representatives (Baym, 2005; Baym, 2008; Jones & Baym, 2010; Fox, Koloen, & Sahin, 2007; Young, 2004). As for the late night talk show, we already identified that it strongly depends on societal mood due to high competition between different channels for viewership and rating records (Schnur in Niven, Licher, & Amundson, 2003; Haigh & Heresco, 2010). Considering the divisive character of the audience as voters (Jones & Baym, 2010), we may expect the late night talk show to be equally critical towards both Democratic and Republican parties in pursuit of an as large viewership as possible.
In contrast to the first two sub-genres, SNL historically follows the trend of being far harsher and critical with regard to the Republican representatives and nominees than the Democrats’ – scholars explain this by the fact that satire in general is opposing existing authorities or by assuming satire is tending to be left-wing (Wild, 2015; Dagnes, 2012; Day & Thompson, 2010; Baym & Jones, 2012; Abel & Barthel, 2013; Compton, 2016). Altogether, the following hypothesis can be put forward:
H2: The proportion of jokes in parody news and late night talk show is more equal towards both party nominees, whilst sketch comedy is more targeted at the Republican candidate than the Democratic one.
Media Critique and Accountability
As a platform of political communication and debate, media is a connection point between government and citizenry, which is why there are certain expectations from it (McQuail, 1997 in Painter & Hodgens, 2010). In the US, where press freedom is ultimately protected by the Constitution, objectivity and accountability of journalism is often questioned. In addition, due to the strong market orientation and treating citizenry as consumers, media
are often blamed to be biased (Scammel, 2007; Cubirth, 2011). Journalists craft information to be objective, politically correct, and follow ethical norms (Cubirth, 2011). Satirists, on the contrary, “don’t always care about being polite. They don’t care about offending you. They don’t care if you disagree” (Provenza, 2010 in Cubirth, 2011). Which is why, satire, as a whole genre, is often referred as a counterbalance to the traditional press and television (Baym, 2005; Painter & Hodgens, 2010). Thus, satire is believed to be serving as an
“authority” enforcing standards of journalism and media, constantly criticizing, and exposing its failures as a mediator of political debate between the citizenry and government (Painter & Hodgens, 2010). Considering media accountability or the media critique function of satire, I address the following research question:
RQ2: What is the proportion and frequency of jokes within news parody, late night talk show and sketch comedy aimed at criticizing media and news outlets?
Under this research question, the study aims to investigate to what extent the three sub-genres are critical towards the press, broadcast news and any other means of journalistic media specifically during the 2016 presidential elections.
Consistently criticizing newsrooms and journalists, the news parody genre is often referred as alternative journalism (Baym, 2005). TDS provides critical analysis of political officials and journalists who cover political agenda using humorous techniques (Holbert, 2005; Painter & Hodges, 2010). Thus, based on the existing news coverage, news parody is expected to be the most critical in regard to press and journalists. Late night talk shows also provide a recap of the most popular agenda; however, rarely sticking to the political media content (Haigh & Heresco, 2010). Instead, hosts of the shows talk about movie premieres, music album releases, cultural and sport events– so, generally what is popular and interesting for the audience – and that are normally not the news media (Caufield, 2008; Niven, Lichter, & Amundson, 2003; Haigh & Heresco, 2010). As for the sketch comedy, it produces political
skits regularly parodying the current issues and events (Holbert, 2005). In addition to
sketches, SNL holds the news parody segment, parodying media agenda weekly. Concluding these remarks, we may expect following:
H3: Sketch comedy contains more media critique than the late night talk show, but less than news parody sub-genre.
Methodology
This study compares the difference between three satirical broadcast sub-genres during the last stage of the 45th American presidential elections. In particular, the proportion of substantive versus personality oriented jokes, percentage of jokes targeting Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton, and coverage of other media outlets. Moreover, this research is expected to present the proportion and intensity of humor types and tones used with regard to selected targets, such a way aiming to reveal significant difference between the satirical sub-genres in the styles they apply.
Sampling
This study applied quantitative content analysis. The sample consisted of one show (i.e., the most prominent one) per political satire sub-genre. For parody news – The Daily Show with Trevor Noah from Comedy Central was chosen with the segments broadcasted prior to the celebrity interview. For the late night talk show – The Late Show with Stephen Colbert from CBS was selected; more specifically, the opening monologue as this are the most distinctive elements to this sub-genre and re-occur in every broadcast. And for comedy sketch – Saturday Night Live from NBC, with its recognizable Weekend Update segment and political editions of specific sketches were analyzed.
channels of the shows. As stated in the theoretical part, the timeframe consisted of the last stage of the presidential elections. Thus, the content analysis was conducted on all program’s broadcasts from the period when the candidate’s announcement was made in July 27, 2016 until the last day prior to the elections in November 7, 2016. In this period, there are 108 episodes in total of the three shows: TDS – 46 episodes (aired 4 days a week), TLS – 57 episodes (aired 5 days a week), and SNL – 5 episodes (aired once a week). Important to note that SNL is a sketch series runs by seasons; thus its timeframe in the broadcast is annually limited from October to May/June.
Coding
Operationalization of humor has always been a challenge for scientists: What is funny to one may not be funny to another (Haigh and Heresco, 2010). Thus, the unit of analysis had to be carefully considered. The coding structure was largely derived from Morris’ research on 2004 Party Conventions coverage in The Daily Show (2008). As Morris fairly noted, typical news coverage on television is unitized by the story, whereas satire as comedy does not have defined stories: It provides humorous comments beyond the boundaries of a story or a topic (Morris, 2008). For instance, when delivering a speech about the police bias towards the black Americans, Trevor Noah addresses several issues within one story: law enforcement, racism, misleading information, containing multiple tones of humor. Obviously, humor follows a certain technical scheme of a humorous story telling.
To demonstrate, a satirist starts with pitching a story with a punchline or mostly with a question, which is expected to catch viewer’s interest. This is followed by a climax of the story, where satirist delivers either the answer to the first question or explains the major story, and it has to evoke laughter. The satirist continues with a final punchline in order to
metaphor. This technique is of course not a universal one, however it is followed by most comedians. According to Morris, this technique allows the satirist to oversimplify the
situation (Morris, 2008) but also means that separate stories cannot easily be analyzed. Thus, we may agree that humorous comments define the coverage, which is why an approach by organizing the analysis by each joke, satirical punchline, or commentary arranged around one target represents a valid and the most feasible unit of analysis. To delineate where a joke ended and a new one begins, [the approach of Morris is follow] by defining this moment by the (evoked) laughter from audience.
Operationalization of variables addressed by the hypotheses and measured in accordance with them, consisted of three parts. First one was to define where and when a particular joke was delivered. It starts by clarifying the show where the joke was said and the date when a precise episode of the show was aired. Here, the codebook also provides a link for the episode and the exact time (minute and second) the joke started. This careful
identification allowed the coder to trace the joke and revise if necessary. Second part was to define the target a joke addressed. Due to the hypotheses, sampling of jokes for the data analysis was narrowed to those containing and addressing political matter. The codebook contained the following classification of targets: political figure, policy issue, political party, media and journalists, and “other.”
Target variables. Item political figure covered those personalities targeted in jokes that are skilled in and/or involved with politics. It means that a target not necessarily holds a position in the governing institution, but can be strongly related to and/or known for the relations with the politics of the US (i.e. First Ladies like Michele Obama, Melania Trump, and their children like Ivanka Trump, Charley Clinton, etc.). This unit is also followed by the clarification of a political figure targeted in a joke: whether it was one of candidates running for presidency in 2016 or someone else (i.e. former president of the US, former candidates for
the presidency, leaders of other states, etc). In order to be classified as a political figure, the target’s name had to be specified by the host either within a story or a joke. If it was not one of the presidential candidates in the 2016 elections, the name of a target was inserted
manually.
Identification of presidential candidates targeted by a joke was also necessary to test the political bias proposed in Hypothesis 2. In addition to the presidential nominees, an item of political party was also included in the codebook of targets. As the research examines coverage of the US elections, this item was strictly limited to the Democratic and Republican parties only, and if the joke was addressing the party in general and not its particular
representatives and members. The results reveal that jokes targeting precisely political parties had the lowest amount in comparison to other targets (see Table 3).
The item policy issue is aimed by the Hypothesis 1, and defines targets addressing political issues: a course of actions and rules adopted or proposed by politicians. This code includes US topics from healthcare and education to international issues with war against ISIS and Brexit in European Union. Policy issue code is aimed at identifying those jokes, that target substantive matter rather than a political persona. As for the Hypothesis 3 and its aim for media accountability, targets falling under the category of media and journalists were classified. It includes not only specified media outlets as newsrooms, TV channels, and magazines (i.e. Fox News, CNN, The New York Times, etc.), but also journalists, news anchors, and media representatives (i.e. Kelyanne Conway). Jokes, targeting moderators of the presidential and vice-presidential debates also were classified as media and journalists due to moderator’s professional background (look Lester Halt, Elaine Quijano, Chris Wallase).
The item other was included in the coding process to diminish those jokes, having other targets than of political matter. This allows to reveal the overall proportion of political
and non-political content of the shows. Target category other includes a wide range of topics starting from sports and celebrities to the show's cast itself and particular citizens, who made it into the news with bizarre behavior.
The humor type. The third part of the coding process directly relates to the
operationalization of humor by defining a joke’s tone suggested by Morris (2008). According to Morris, target tells little about how humor will be perceived by the audience (Morris, 2008). In order to have a better understanding of the nature of humor, I used the codebook constructed by Morris, which “outlines mutually exclusive categories of humor” (p.84, 2008). The original content analysis codebook by Morris has following tones of humor:
Complimentary, self-deprecating, physical, stereotypical, dismissive, policy, and character. The major problem with the Morris’ codebook is that it aims to not only highlight the tone of humor, but also to define the joke target. To clarify, self-deprecating, dismissive, policy and character are addressing targets, rather than the tone of humor. Self-deprecating item stands for jokes targeting the host and people involved in the production of The Daily Show, where the humor is intentionally used to ridicule the credibility of TDS itself.
Dismissive tone aimed at jokes highlighting those targets that are irrelevant to the study (same as other in the current research). The code policy categorized jokes addressing flawed and failed policies, and character aimed at jokes targeting flaws in individual’s character and not his policies. These codes were dismissed as they were irrelevant for the current study,
however new ones were developed in accordance with theoretical foundations of satire’s definition.
Defining target separately from humor type allows to measure both accurately. Following satire’s definition, I decided to trace it’s five elements (aggression, judgement, play, laughter, and pre-existing knowledge) within the satirical sub-genres. We may designate that Stereotypical tone requires pre-existing knowledge, as for the Judgmental tone, it
Table 1. Content analysis of joke tone
Code Explanation Example
Complimentary the target is given a positive compliment
Stephen Colbert [on Michele Obama]: “… she convinced everyone in that arena that it was finally time to elect as president of the United States Former First Lady… Michele Obama.
SNL skit of the first presidential debate:
Lester Holt (Michael Che): Secretary Clinton, what do you think about that?
Hillary Clinton (Kate McKinnon): I think I’m gonna be the president. Aggressive
(Attacking)
the target is given offensive, harmful, aggressive evaluation without critical reason
Stephen Colbert “Hillary was so prepared, my new nickname for her is Preparation H”
Trevor Noah [on Trump] “… the giant novelty dildo was on stage, behind the podium”
Physical (Ridicule) description of the target’s physical
appearance or odd behavior, based on ridiculing the character and his/her personality flaws
Stephen Colbert “How did we get to the point, where the fate of the American experiment rests in Donald Trump’s tiny, whining, looser hands?”
Stereotypical
(Mocking)
a statement attacking the target with pre-existing stereotypes and/or knowledge related to him/her, associated with politician, party, social class, gender, etc.
Trevor Noah: “… To be fair, Trump thinks all women are puppets, that’s why he’s always trying to stick his hand up them”
Stephen Colbert: “Trump invited president Obama’s half-brother, Malik… which, I think, means that president’s half-brother had sex with Bill Clinton? I’m not entirely sure…” Judgmental
(Critical Assessment)
the target is given an examination and analysis, explaining, revealing and questioning his/her success, failure, or absurdity.
Stephen Colbert: “What? ‘Reimburse’ us for the wall? You clearly said that Mexico would pay for the wall. Paying for something is very different than reimbursing. You can’t take a date out, make her pay, and then say ‘just send me an invoice’”.
Trevor Noah [after a footage, where Mark Kirk (Rep), referred to Tammy Duckworth (Dem) as an immigrant] “that awkward pause brought to you by racism”
provides critical and comprehensive overview of the information making it more digestible for the audience, by pointing out hypocrisy and absurdity. These two types of humor strongly differ from Aggressive and Physical types, where the first is aimed at offensive, non-critical, and subjective opinion in regard to the target, whereas the second one is simply ridicule based on physical appearance. Morris’ Complimentary tone was also added in case satirists use positive evaluation of a target. This way, I developed and sharpened Morris’ codebook. Table 1, provides a comprehensive codebook with definitions for each code and existing examples from the shows in the third column.
Reliability. An outside coder with an interest in satire, broadcast shows were chosen to measure reliability. The coder was given an explanation from the codebook and the
agreement was high. Out of 90 joke units, only 6 resulted to be different, which is only 6,67% of the sample. All the difference was concentrated in defining aggressive, physical, and/or stereotypical types of humor. Disagreements were based on cultural and historical perception of the jokes.
Results
The amount of joke units differs as follows: TDS – 1747 coded jokes, TLS – coded jokes 1638, and SNL – 575 coded jokes; giving us the total of jokes coded n = 3960 within the three shows. Table 2 provides information for the primary analysis, where we are able to see the percentage of jokes focused on Other targets than those aimed by the hypothesis. Having these numbers, we may conclude that all the three shows' joke content was prevailed by political issues, which also demonstrates the political relevance of these programs. With this, I proceed for the further analysis by selecting samples/targets related to the RQ and
Table 2. Joke targets classification by shows in percent and N.
The number of joke samples targeting political matter is n = 2331 units, which are included in the further analysis. Table 3 provides data to testify Hypotheses 1 and 3. RQ1
asked the proportion of jokes targeting personality traits or policy issues between the three satirical sub-genres. SNL as a comedy sketch was expected to have more policy oriented jokes than late night talk show. Surprisingly, this part of the hypothesis is refuted. Following the data provided in the Table 3, SNL had 0 jokes targeting policy issues. Meanwhile, TDS as the parody news proved to outnumber the other two sub-genres in the policy orientation with 4,1%. So, while overall the programs did rarely deal with political issues, however statistic results show there is a significant difference between them (𝑥#= 43,178, df = 6, p<.000). Thus, Hypothesis 1 partially confirmed the theoretical foundation.
Table 3. Joke targets by show in percent.
RQ2 addressed the issue of media accountability, where satirical platforms serve as a
confrontation to traditional press. The news parody sub-genre as expected has the highest
Target The Daily Show The Late Show Saturday Night Live
Political 58,7% 57,4% 63,3% Other 41,3% 42,6% 36,7% Total in % and (N) 100%
(1747)
100% (1638)
100% (575)
Target The Daily Show The Late Show Saturday Night Live Political figure 85,2 91 93,1 Policy issue 4,1 1,1 0 Political party 2,5 2,4 0,5 Media and journalists 8,2 5,5 6,3
Total % and (N) 100% (1026) 100% (941) 100% (364)
comedy (6,3%), and late night talk show with 5,5% of total. Having this data, Hypothesis 3 is fully verified. To test significance, a cross tabulation was run with a chi-square test. The difference were found to be statistically significant (𝑥#= 43,178, df = 6, p<.000).
To analyze Hypothesis 2, presence or absence of political bias in regard to presidential nominees based on party affiliation, a similar test was run selecting the amount of jokes particularly aimed at presidential nominees by the shows. The results provided in Table 4 reject Hypothesis 2. Evidently, there is no significant difference between the parody news and late night talk show: both heavily aimed at Donald Trump with around 80% of the jokes, when expected to be equally targeting both candidates. Chi-square test point out on a
significant difference between the sub-genres: particularly of SNL from the other two shows (𝑥#= 45,786, df = 2, p<.000). SNL had as twice as much jokes about Hillary Clinton than TDS and TLS.
Table 4. Jokes targeting
presidential nominees by shows in percent.
The fact that Hillary Clinton was significantly present in the content of SNL is explained by the nature of the show: with parody skits, Kate McKinnon’s impersonations of Hillary Clinton made the Democratic candidate more visible as a target. However, despite conspicuous dominance of comedy sketch sub-genre in focusing jokes on Clinton (32,2%) than news parody (19,5%) or late night talk show (17,2%), the general picture of findings proves that the content of all the three satirical sub-genres is mainly aimed at the Republican party nominee.
Target The Daily Show The Late Show Saturday Night Live
Hillary Clinton 19,5% 17,2% 38,2% Donald Trump 80,5% 82,8% 61,8%
Types of Humor
Following the logic of satire’s four elements (i.e., aggression, play, laughter, judgement, and pre-existing knowledge), we may define to what extent the late night
television comedy is informative. Quantitative overview of each show’s humor type reveals the intensity they were used with, thus testifying theoretical frames established in defining satire. In order to find statistical difference between the shows, cross tabulation test was run with every humor type used in coding. Figure 1, provides overall visual picture of the results.
Figure 1. Tones of humor by shows in percent
From the first look, one may assume that all the three shows follow similar pattern, however there is a statistical difference between the shows at every humor type. To start with The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, it is significantly different at Aggressive (𝑥#= 10,659, df = 2, p<.005) and Stereotypical (𝑥#= 27,122, df = 2, p<.000) types of humor. Surprisingly, TDS has the lowest intensity of Stereotypical tone, and the highest in Aggressive. It points out, that
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Complimentary Aggressive Physical Stereotypical Judgemental
Tones of humour in jokes by shows in percent
jokes on TDS required the least pre-existing knowledge from the viewers, and yet contained the most offensive amount of jokes.
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert stands out in Complimentary (𝑥#= 14,632, df = 2, p<.001) and Physical (𝑥#= 19,285, df = 2, p<.000) types of humor: in both, TLS had the lowest amount of jokes. So, despite the show's lack of positive humor, it’s content is the least ridiculing on the basis of physical appearance. As for the Saturday Night Live, the show resulted to be significantly different at Judgmental tone of humor (𝑥#= 25,086, df = 2,
p<.000). Here, the comedy sketch sub-genre appears to contain the least critical argumentation comparing to other shows. Other than that, findings illustrate that humor in every show is mainly based on pre-existing knowledge as the majority of jokes were targeting stereotypes.
Discussion
In the “news world colliding with the entertainment world” (p. 130, Niven et al., 2003) due to high intensity of presidential elections press coverage, this study aimed to reveal the proportion of jokes aiming at political targets and difference in the type of humor used within broadcast satire shows, months prior to the election day. Based on the existing theories regarding the nature of satire and its representation by satirical sub-genres in American broadcast, I developed three hypotheses to build a hierarchy among sub-genres based on substantive issues, political affiliation, and media critique. I hypothesized that sketch comedy contains more policy oriented issues than the late night talk show, as SNL obtains a news parody segment. However, in the course of the analysis, there was not found a single joke addressing policy issue in Saturday Night Live. Meanwhile TDS proved the news parody sub-genre not only as the most substantive but also the most media targeting as expected in the hypothesis. Although, among thousands of jokes within all the three sub-genres, quite a few out of delivered substantive content: jokes on politicians significantly outnumber policy
issues and/or media critique. And yet, in general, more than a half of jokes were based on political matter, so we may still agree that satire does obtain substantive content (Fox, Koloen, & Sahin, 2007; Holbert, 2016). So, even with significant difference found in the analysis of jokes between the three shows, clearly they all follow a similar pattern in choosing the target for humor.
As for the political bias addressed in Hypothesis 2, data analysis rejected the study’s expectations. Hypothesized that parody news and late night talk show equally target both candidates, analysis revealed that TDS and TLS significantly targeted Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. Comedy sketch was expected to significantly aim at the Republican candidate, which was confirmed; however SNL contained twice as many jokes about the Democratic nominee in comparison to the other shows. Previous studies share concern of satirical shows to target more the Republican Party and its candidates (Dagnes, 2012; Morris, 2008). The case of 45th Presidential Elections’ coverage does not necessarily prove that. The fact that jokes targeting Donald Trump heavily outnumber Hillary Clinton is justified by the eccentricity of the character. The Daily Show and The Late Show attacked Donald Trump in most of their jokes; for satirists, the candidate became an ultimate joke target as every action, appearance in public, and even personal tweet were matters of absurdity. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton seemed to serve only as a background in most of the stories. Which is why, due to impersonation and parody skits, SNL had higher amount of jokes about Hillary Clinton than TDS and TLS, but still much less than jokes targeting Donald Trump.
As for the nature of humor, additional analysis also revealed a strong similarity between the three sub-genres. Surprisingly, jokes in each show are not as Aggressive as satire stated to be by scholars (Caufield, 2008; Jones & Baym, 2010; Baym & Jones, 2012). As all the sub-genres significantly targeted personas over issues, Physical tone was found more often than offensive and harmful jokes. However, Judgmental tone was almost as intense as
Physical, which means that broadcast satire may not be significantly substantive in terms of target choice, but it is still can be pretty critical towards it, no matter the target type (Coletta, 2009; Young and Tisinger, 2006). To illustrate, when talking about Donald Trump’s
speeches, satirists often referred to his older statements, revealing a major contradiction and/or lie. Such an assessment allows audience to see the absurdity of the situation caused by a politician (Gray, Jones, & Thompson, 2009 in Holbert, 2016; Coletta, 2009). Such an examination is often undermined by traditional media outlets (Baym, 2005; Painter & Hodgens, 2010). Finally, a high percentage of the Stereotypical tone in the three sub-genres gives us an opportunity to state that indeed, satire content strongly depends on pre-existing knowledge regarding the issue, story, or characters among the viewers (Caufield, 2008; Haigh & Heresco, 2010; Boukes, et al., 2015; Young, 2013; Young & Tisinger, 2006).
In the course of coding, it was hard to not notice similarity between the shows based on the subjects they covered. Despite the difference in format and stage, and statistical
difference in the analysis, the three shows were very similar in the issues and stories that they addressed: For example, not only political events like National Conventions, debates, and rallies, but also scandals like Hillary Clinton’s e-mails, Anthony Weiner’s sexting, and Donald Trump’s “pussygate” received wide attention. Although SNL did not air until October, it covered the exact same highlights of the presidential debates and political
scandals. Moreover, events like iPhone 7 release, Samsung Galaxy 7 explosion, and baseball team Chicago Cubs’ first win in the World Series since 1908, were in the top discussed stories. Of course, these stories were in the headlines due to the scale of importance, but most surprisingly, the smallest and oddest story, like an Australian bitten by a spider on his penis for the second time, was covered in all the three shows. In the final episodes before the election day, all the three shows evidently shared their concern about voting, openly asking American viewers to participate and to vote for Hillary Clinton, or at least not to vote for
Donald Trump.
The study has certain limitations. Firstly, the amount of episodes in SNL was significantly lower due to its seasonal limitations and air time per week. Having a longer timeframe would provide more data for the analysis and better insight of the show’s nature. Secondly, the coding process may be developed for future analysis of the satirical content. As explained in the methodology, satire delivers a story filled with humorous commentaries. However, the major plot is often diminished in the range of oversimplified jokes and comments (Morris, 2008). Thus, while counting commentaries and punchlines evoking laughter, coding process may sometimes have undermined an important and serious story by giving it the same weight as smaller silly jokes.
Political satire does matter, especially due to the complexity of its form (Baumgarther & Morris, 2008b). Previous studies mainly examined effects the late night television comedy caused on audience (Young, 2004, 2008, 2013; Dagnes, 2012; Boukes et al. 2015, Matthes & Rauchfleisch, 2013; Compton, 2008 etc.). Current study significantly adds to the literature not only because it provides content analysis rarely done in the field, but because it contains a stronger theoretical ground in defining satire and sets the basis for distinguishing late night television comedy types. This allows scientists to compare different shows’ content and effects with theoretical confidence. Moreover, viewers evidently may learn from modern satire shows, as it delivers political messages based on pre-existing knowledge and critical examination of the story (Caufield, 2008; Haigh & Heresco, 2010; Boukes, et al., 2015; Young, 2013; Young & Tisinger, 2006). Satirists (or show hosts) add up to the agenda by mocking and ridiculing, but they also provide historical, economic, social, and political perspectives, discovering the same issue from different angles. To clarify, as the majority of jokes in every show appeared to have a stereotypical tone of humor, this means that satirists, reaching a humorous effect, rely on variety of issues already familiar to the audience, no
matter of their age, gender, social class, profession, etc. (Jones & Baym, 2010; Young and Tisinger, 2006; Haigh & Heresco, 2010). This is a major discovery for the field of satire, as the audience assumed to recognize and understand the addressed issue behind oversimplifying and ridiculing punchlines (Jones & Baym, 2010; Young and Tisinger, 2006; Haigh &
Heresco, 2010). So, dividing satire in horatian and juvenalian forms is rude (Holbert et al, 2011). Instead, true political satire is an interdependence of both: There is a tragedy veiled by comedy. This symbiosis of ridiculing and shaming substance with hurting and wounding one is what makes satire a unique genre of humor (Morris, 2008). Making the information more comprehensive and digestible via humor, satire also challenges citizenry to look beyond the reality they are pushed into by the authority and status quo (Holbert et al, 2011; Holbert, 2005; Morris, 2008; Compton, 2008; Baym & Jones, 2012).
The content analysis conducted in this research helps to understand the nature of modern political satire representation both in theory and practice. It provides insights that late night television comedy significantly detects flaws and absurdity of political rhetoric, and delivers its inconsistences with different humor tones (Young and Tisinger, 2006). Future research on the effects can be built on the theoretical and analytical findings provided in the current research and developed further. To conclude, when analyzing another tragic event of a black man shot by the police in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Trevor Noah explained how he manages to deliver humorous comments: “People always ask me ‘How do you laugh when the news is sad?... It’s not that I find things funny. It’s that my mind uses this as a tool to protect me from pain” (Episode 119 of September 21, 2016). So, we can say that satire serves as a shield protecting citizenry from wrongdoings of the society, politicians, and authority (Caufield, 2008; Coletta, 2009; Young and Tisinger, 2006). It is proven by the fact that the majority of targets of late night television comedy analysed in this study delivered political matter.
References
Abel, A. D. & Barthel, M. (2013) “Appropriation of Mainstream News: How Saturday Night Live Changed the Political Discussion”, Critical Studies in Media Communication, 30:1, 1-16, DOI: 10.1080/15295036.2012.701011
Balmas, M. (2014). When Fake News Becomes Real: Combined Exposure to Multiple News Sources and Political Attitudes of Inefficacy, Alienation, and Cynicism.
Communication Research, 2014, Vol. 41(3) 430–454. Sage Publications DOI: 10.1177/0093650212453600
Baumgartner J. C. & Morris J. S., (2008). Preface: the “Truthiness” of American Politics.
Laughing matters: humor and American politics in the media age, pp xiii-xx.
Baumgartner J. C.; Morris J. S., (2008b) One “Nation,” Under Stephen? The Effects of The Colbert Report on American Youth, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 52:4, 622-643, DOI: 10.1080/08838150802437487
Baym, G. (2005). The Daily Show: Discursive integration and the reinvention of political journalism. Political Communication, 22(3), 259-276.
Baym G. (2008). Serious Comedy: Expanding the boundaries of Political Discourse.
Laughing matters: humor and American politics in the media age, pp. 21-37.
Baym, G. & Jones, J.P. (2012). News Parody in Global Perspective: Politics, Power, and Resistance, Popular Communication, 10:1-2, 2-13, DOI:
10.1080/15405702.2012.638566
Becker, A.B. & Waisanen, D.J. (2013) From Funny Features to Entertaining Effects:
Connecting Approaches to Communication Research on Political Comedy, Review of Communication, 13:3, 161-183, DOI: 10.1080/15358593.2013.826816
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, 2015 Oct, Vol.65(5), pp.721-744 [Peer Reviewed Journal]
Branham, B.R. (2009). Satire. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Literature, edited by Eldridge, R. Sep, 2009 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195182637.003.0007
Buijzen, M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2004). Developing a typology of humor in audiovisual media. Media Psychology, 6(2), 147-167.
Caufield R. P., (2008). The influence of “Infoenterpropagainment”: Exploring the Power of Political Satire as a Distinct Form of Political Humor. Laughing matters: humor and American politics in the media age, pp. 3-20.
Coletta, L. (2009). Political Satire and Postmodern Irony in the Age of Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart, The Journal of Popular Culture, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp. 856-874
Compton, J. (2016). Live from DC: Saturday Night Live Political Parody References in Presidential Rhetoric, Comedy Studies, 7:1, 62-78, DOI:
10.1080/2040610X.2016.1139808
Compton, J. (2008). More Than Laughing? Survey of Politicsl Humour Effects Research,
Laughing matters: humor and American politics in the media age, pp. 39-63.
Cutbirth, J. H., (2011). Satire as Journalism: The Daily Show and American Politics at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century, Columbia University. Retrieved from
http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac:132290
Dagnes A., (2012). A conservative walks into a bar: The politics of political humor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Day, A. & Thompson, E. (2012) Live From New York, It's the Fake News! Saturday Night Live and the (Non)Politics of Parody, Popular Communication, 10:1-2, 170-182, DOI: 10.1080/15405702.2012.638582
Show with Jon Stewart and Broadcast Network Television Coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media/ June 2007
Haigh, M.M., & Heresco, A. (2010). Late-Night Iraq: Monologue Joke Content and Tone From 2003 to 2007, Mass Communication and Society, 13:2, 157-173, DOI: 10.1080/15205430903014884
Holbert, R. L. (2005). A typology for the study of entertainment television and politics. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(3), 436-453.
Holbert, R.L. (2016). Entertainment Television and Political Campaigns: The Political Satire Appropriateness (PSA) Model. Praeger Handbook of Political Campaigning in the United States, pp. 171-190.
Holbert, R.L., Hmielowski, J., Jain, P., Lather J., Morey, A. (2011). Adding Nuance to the Study of Political Humour Effects: Experimental Research on Juvenalian and Horatian Satire. American Behavioural Scientist 55(3) pp. 187– 211. Sage Publications, DOI: 10.1177/0002764210392156
Lerner, L.S. (1990). Golden Age Satire: Transformations of Genre. The Jones Hopkins University Press, MLN, Vol. 105, No. 2, Hispanic Issue (Mar., 1990), pp. 260-282 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 2466.2011.01621.x
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
