Do People Actually Learn from Colbert and Stewart?

We've had some time now to review an emerging body of work that asks whether people learn from such faux news programs as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report.  While I'm not going to bore you with a formal lit review, I will try to summarize what we know so far about the effects of such "soft news" programs.

• People view such programs differently than traditional news.  Call this the couch potato hypothesis.  With less mental effort you get less learning.  After all, most people sit down in front of the TV to be entertained and even when they do try to be informed by such content, the brain is wired differently. 

• Similar to above is the empty-calorie hypothesis, that idea that people will rely on humorous forms of news and feel filled up, like sucking on a Coke, and won't consume their vegetables (real news).  The result?  Less knowledge.

• What you know matters.  Well-informed folks glean more from an information source than less-informed.  That said, TV best serves those who know least, especially TV news, because of the way TV tells a story versus the traditional inverted pyramid of print news, which with its emphasis on the latest information first assumes prior knowledge.

• Humor is thought to get in the way of learning, but to help in persuasion.  The theory is straightforward -- humor lowers our defenses, reduces counter-arguing, and is therefore more likely to persuade.  But humor interferes with actual learning.

• The content of these faux news programs resembles in some ways the TV newscasts.  Content analyses find many similarities, though these also find dramatic differences.  It's hard to make tragedy funny, and often Colbert and Stewart take the easy way out, the easy laugh, because it can backfire if you try to make a tragedy into something it's not.  Quite simply, unless you're consuming traditional news, there are huge holes in your information, gaps found in news quizzes or measures of political knowledge.

• But ... the people who watch these programs tend to be news junkies anyway, well-educated and young, people who "get" the jokes because they're at least moderately informed.

• Finally, it's that "moderate" thing that matters.  It's the folks who attend to no news but watch these programs who come out losers, at least as measured by tests of political knowledge.

• Beware the methodological mess-up.  Sometimes scholars will combine these two shows with the late-night talk shows (i.e., Jay Leno).  They are not the same.  Different content, different audiences, different results.  I'm in the middle of a study that finds, today, you really have to ask about exposure to specific networks (Fox News, etc.) and even specific programs (The O'Reilly Factor) to get at the kinds of effects that matter in political communication.

Beck, Stewart, Colbert, et al

A different take by Jon Bershad, from a week or so ago, on the continuing saga of TV talkmeisters Glenn Beck, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert.  Beck kinda has a point, only kinda and only barely, about jokes being a "drug" in a news context.  Anyway, think of this as a quick fyi as I run out to give an exam.

When Parody Becomes NewsAnd Vice Versa

We used to worry about the separation of church and state (news and advertising).  We used to worry about the blurring of opinion and news.

Doesn't that seem so quaint?

Now we have the blurring of comedy, parody, and news, and lots of people hanging around Washington DC when they should be watching the Georgia-Florida game.  The Stewart/Colbert thing will no doubt be funny, will get covered by cable news, and will get far more attention that it probably deserves.  But what the hell.  These guys are damn funny, almost as funny as some of the candidates running for office (such as my congressional district).

Colbert: Conservative, or Not?

Stephen Colbert "defends" Glenn Beck.  Kinda, sorta.

In the bit linked above, reader Nick Browning points out that Colbert appears somewhat more transparent.   Colbert is "effectively disguised" as a conservative, some charge.  Studies suggest Colbert nudges people to the right as he -- a liberal -- plays a conservative TV blowhard (last two words, a redundancy, I admit).  Or maybe Colbert is a conservative playing a liberal who plays a conservative.  Yes, you can go crazy this way.

No, the "defense" of Beck above makes it clear where Colbert stands -- for those who were confused.

Of Cottage Academic Industries

Some television programs create a cottage industry of academic research.  Sesame Street is one clear example.  Buffy the Vampire Slayer -- believe it or not -- is another. 

And if you study political communication, a couple of guys are cottage industries of a sort for academics.  I speak in praise, obviously, of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

Here's the abstract and full pdf of yet another study, this time on The Colbert Report.  As a PhDweeb who did some of the earliest research on "new news" and faux news programs, I'm allowed to take the high road, to sniff at these latecomers, and pretend superiority.  But in truth the stuff coming out now is quite good, better than the early studies, including mine.  This one looks at the ideology of experimental subjects and how they respond to Colbert's partisan humor.  It gets into how people negotiate "ambiguous political messages from ambiguous sources," which is a neat angle to take given Colbert's approach.  You can read it yourself.

Think of this as another brick in the wall of showing how Colbert and Stewart have very different effects, given their approaches.  The conclusion is a bit obvious, that we need to consider predispositions in understanding how people view such programs, but the work here is excellent, especially the discussion of what it all may mean.

Stewart vs. Colbert

There is an emerging bit of scholarly work that suggests those two popular comedy faux news programs -- Jon Stewart's The Daily Show and Stephen Colbert's The Colbert Report -- have very different effects on their audiences.

Stewart's show is more straightforward.  He slams Republicans, occasionally Democrats, but basically you know where's coming from. Colbert is more sneaky.  He plays a Republican blowhard to make fun of Republicans and blowhards.  But his approach confuses some.  In other words, he nudges people to like Republicans and those he satirizes, according to one study.

Why mention this?  In part the issue is methodological.  You wouldn't want to measure exposure to the two programs and then collapse this into a single index called Exposure to Late Night Comedy.  There are enough differences, at least suggested in some published studies or a few under consideration at journals, that combining the two might, if not cancel one another out, create measurement error issues.  And I think I broke a personal record for the number of commas in a single sentence.  Apologies.

Lots of people mention such programs as a source of their news and information, as places that influence what people know.  If true, we must be careful in how we take these questions and combine them into a single variable.  In fact, best I can tell from some early data, this would be a mistake.

What dependent variables would this most likely influence?  Probably not knowledge so much as attitudinal items, such as like/dislike of candidates or even attitudes about major institutions such as Congress or the Press.  I don't see it influencing trust in government but it might influence internal or external efficacy.  In general, we need to carefully examine differences between these two programs on key criterion variables before simply combining them in a single index.

Of Limbaugh and Hannity and Obama

The Beck-Hannity-Limbaugh-Etc. group have been pounding Obama for a few weeks now. If they're not crying (Beck) they're calling Obama socialist (Hannity) or they're simply suggesting it may be the end of the world (Beck again, cleverly made fun of by Colbert here and then here, watch them in order. Hilarious).

That's fine and good. Let 'em talk, it's all part of the joy of American democracy that anyone with an asshole and an opinion can use both, though hopefully in public only the latter. But you'd think these guys would be having some kind of effect. Nope. Not yet. At least not in mainstream America.

The traditional president favorability ratings show a slight uptick in Obama's numbers. Latest, 69 percent Favorable, up from 68 (but within the margin of error, for the methodologically minded among you). Obama's high is 77 percent, back at inauguration. That's a ceiling effect and the prez rarely climbs back to that point except in dire, extraordinary times like a 9/11.

Given the economy, given two wars, given the nutjob in North Korea and the vehemence of the political right, you'd think these numbers would edge down more. I would've predicted low 60s, maybe even 50s.

Even Obama's "unfavorable" numbers have inched down, opposite of what you might expect given the ideological and partisan pounding he's taking. Post tea party numbers should drive Obama's favorability down, if there's any traction in a largely symbolic and somewhat under performing pr event. Maybe the traction will take a week or two to be seen, so we'll check again. But what people know right now seems to be a generally favorable impression of Obama, even in these ugly economic times. Remarkable.

Colbert -- Double Agent

Stephen Colbert plays a right wing, self-obsessed TV bloviator on Comedy Central.

Or does he?

A study in the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media suggests something more ominous is at work. Conspiracy buffs -- and you know who you are -- pull up a chair.

Colbert, we all thought, was a liberal posing as a windbag conservative to make them look silly. But this study suggests people who watch his program actually become more conservative and more Republican. I blogged about the study in January, but now I've given it more thought.

It's simple: Colbert is not a liberal posing as a conservative to make conservatives look foolish. It's much deeper than that. Colbert is a conservative posing as a liberal who poses as a conservative. We think he's making conservatives look foolish when, instead, he secretly pulls people to the political right.

Clever, Colbert. Very clever.

And now I am so confused.

Colbert, Take 2

"By attempting to mock conservative commentators, Colbert may unintentionally be helping these commentators sway potential voters to the right."

That's one of the conclusions to a study I discussed in detail yesterday. Published in the latest JOBEM, the research suggests that channel-surfing young people may not quite get what Stephen Colbert is up to as he plays a far-right, self-obsessed, TV talking head, or at least the effects of Colbert's comedy may have unintended consequences.

Watching Jon Stewart's faux news show? No such effect, suggesting something about playing an Archie Bunker-like role can have the opposite effect than you hoped for. Or maybe this is actually some kind of secret Colbert plot? A conservative, posing as a liberal, playing a conservative, and ... er, never mind. Getting a headache.

The mixed message is no doubt the root of the problem.

The authors hypothesized that Colbert's mixed message would lead to a decrease in internal efficacy, the idea that one is capable of participating in politics. The hypothesis makes sense. But Table 4 reports the results on "Internal Efficacy" and the standard question "Agree that politics and government seems too complicated." High scores mean low efficacy and there is a positive relationship between watching Colbert and this measure, meaning viewing it leads to less efficacy. But the authors say their hypothesis was not supported. It's confusing as hell, or I'm just confused. Clarification needed. They would have been better served by flipping the measure, recoding it in such a way that high meant greater internal efficacy, otherwise their table title is misleading.

Enough quibbles. It's a fascinating study, thus getting two days of discussion from me. Hell, might get a third if nothing better shows up.

Colbert and the Dangers of Satire

While skimming the latest issue of the Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (transparency alert -- I'm on the editorial board), I noticed the final article on the effects of Colbert's program on American youth. Everyone knows Colbert's shtick, playing a far right, self-obsessed TV commentator. He makes fun of political conservatives by playing one. Damn funny.

But do people get it? Especially young viewers?

I thought so, but a study by Jody C. Baumgartner and Jonathan S. Morris suggest otherwise. Using a controlled experiment, the viewers of the Colbert Report were found to NOT be more critical of the far right and instead there was an increased affinity for President George W. Bush, Congressional Republicans, and policies favored by the GOP.

What the hell?

Even more interesting, the authors argue this is opposite the effect found for viewers of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, who plays a faux news commentator, but without posing as a conservative.

These "unintended consequences" are fascinating. Do some young people not get satire? Are some of them politically unsophisticated, enough so that they actually move in the direction of the political position being mocked? I suspect so. This reminds me of the response to All in the Family and the infamous main character, Archie Bunker. Remember him? He played a bigoted, narrow-minded guy who, every episode, turned out to be wrong. Except -- and this is important -- for many who shared his views, they actually thought him right, winning the debate, and there was some suggestion that he moved viewers to the right, not left.

Coincidently, Leonard Pitts has an interesting column today that mentions Bunker and he discusses showing the program to his students, and how they were apalled by the humor. Also discussing the new film Gran Torino, he asks are we at the point now of political correctness that satire won't work if it touches on race. Are we awash in sensitivity?

I think some of this is related, but I'm going to have to think through exactly how, and what it all means. Basically I suspect some people just don't get satire and, today, we're often afraid of anything that comes close to negativity toward any racial, ethnic, religious, or other kind of group. That's good, but there are side effects.

Colbert's Audience

Stephen Colbert is upset that his audience did so well on the infamous Pew political knowledge test. As always, funny . . .

Colbert and Stewart, scholars

What if Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart sat down over a few adult beverages and wrote a current events/political knowledge quiz?

What would it look like?

I suspect it would not look a lot like the infamous Pew surveys on knowledge (which are quite good, btw). I know they would not look like the NES knowledge questions, which have some coding issues I discussed in an earlier post.

Then again, maybe the list would look a lot like the Pew questions, with a focus on the nearly forgotten war in Iraq. What people know about Iraq has gone down of late, no doubt thanks to other concerns and coverage that focuses on presidential primaries and a crappy economy.

So I'm gonna let this idea sit for a day and try to come up with the kind of questions Colbert and Stewart might craft to measure knowledge about public affairs. Too bad I'm not as funny as either of them, and even worse -- I don't have a team of writers to help me.

Life Without Colbert & Stewart

The writers strike is no big deal, except for one thing -- Colbert and Stewart are in reruns.

At first this was okay. They're funny guys, even in reruns, even when you know the punchline, but now we have a presidential campaign heating up and many are left floundering without the insight of these two faux political pundits.

Except not so faux.

These guys carry some weight, some heft. They carry something. Anyway, a lot of people turn to The Daily Show and The Colbert Report for fun and, oddly, to get their news. I've done research on this. The Pew Center has infamously reported how many people say they get their news from such programs. I won't repeat the numbers here, but they are significant ... especially among young viewers.

Who wins? Conservatives and Republicans, I suspect, though Hillary Clinton and John Edwards get their fair share of abuse. Huckabee (my likely GOP vp candidate) is not getting his dose of satiric abuse. Fred Thompson (from my hometown!) would be getting hit too, but he's so asleep at the campaign wheel that it doesn't matter.

Honest. The writers strike matters. It matters because we're missing our daily satire, our faux news. And since there is research that suggests The Daily Show's "coverage" of news is equal of that seen on the nightly broadcast networks, this means something. I don't know exactly what the hell it means, but I suspect what people know about the campaign is affected, if not how much they laugh about it.

Colbert and Name Recognition

Stephen Colbert may (or may not) (or just may again for the hell of it) run in the South Carolina presidential primary as a Democrat (and a Republican) or (both) or (neither).

This blog is about what people know -- in other words, what they learn (or don't learn) about the correct use of parentheses. Oh, and what and how they learn about politics and public affairs. And Stephen Colbert.

Colbert is serious. He means business. And he will pander beyond compare, and that's saying a helluva lot given the cast of characters we presently have running for the second highest office in the land (after being a Red Sox starting pitcher). Fear him. Let's say for the sake of argument he goes through with it. Let's say he's on the South Carolina ballot, or ballots, in which tens of people statewide will participate come primary time. Who does he hurt? Who does he make cry?

Hell if I know. I live in Georgia.

From an academic PhDweeb standpoint, his candidacy offers all the theoretical juice one could hope for. He's got name recognition. He's got an arching eyebrow. He's got the vote of everyone -- except the bears. Lucky for him he is not running in a state loaded with the huge, dangerous, man-eating mammals. Like New Hampshire or New York or Iowa.

On a serious note, whenever someone like this does toss his arching eyebrow into the ring, it brings a few more people to the table to mix metaphors and pay attention to the campaign. It'll be interesting to see if Colbert's name recognition matches that of other well known candidates.