From Funny Features to Entertaining Effects: Connecting Approaches to Communication Research on Political Comedy

Abstract

This article offers points of intersection and difference across communication research on political comedy. Based on our findings, we argue that political comedy scholarship can be usefully divided into two areas: (1) features and (2) effects. Under features, we find three overlapping but distinct areas of emphasis: political comedy's rhetorical devices and conventions, its ideological and ethical functions, and its contributions to public culture. Under effects, we construct another four areas, including knowledge and learning, attitudes and opinion, cynicism and engagement, and processing, understanding, and affinity. The essay provides an overview of studies on political comedy's features and effects, before concluding with five pathways that can bridge these divides and bring conceptual clarity to future research.

Keywords:

• Political Comedy
• Humor
• Effects
• Features
• Public Culture

Notes

[1] See Matthew M. Hurley, Daniel C. Dennett, and Reginald B. Adams, Jr, Inside Jokes: Using Humor to Reverse-Engineer the Mind (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011).

[2] For starters, Holcomb's masterful overview of the importance of “jesting” as rhetoric in early modern England accounted for the complex sociopolitical purposes put into play by joking under changing (and changeable) circumstances—demonstrating in particular how issues of culture and identity raised in humorous forms are anything but trivial. Chris Holcomb. Mirth Making: The Rhetorical Discourse on Jesting in Early Modern England (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2001). The Classics have also played a vital role in (re)constructing comedy's political functions. Responding to charges that ancient comedy only functioned as entertainment, Konstan parsed differences between Greek forms like Old Comedy, where “bold actions; earthy humor; immediate social or political relevance … rich in fantasy and spunk” contrasted with the “naturalism” and “subtle and sympathetic examination[s] of social issues” in New Comedy—highlighting that both forms were “an intervention in the ideological life of the classical city-state.” David Konstan, Greek Comedy and Ideology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 4–5, 11. For a more comprehensive look at the historical, literary, and popular “significant reoccurring patterns” of comedy, see T.G.A. Nelson, Comedy: The Theory of Comedy in Literature, Drama, and Cinema (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 17. As further motivation for our essay, we should last acknowledge the lead of Paul Lewis, who earlier set out “to introduce literary critics to the current social science humor research and to introduce social science humor researchers to literary works in which humor is crucial,” to move beyond academic silos and encourage pluralistic projects in this area. Paul Lewis, Comic Effects: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Humor in Literature (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989), ix–x.

[3] Owen H. Lynch, “Humorous Communication: Finding a Place for Humor in Communication Research,” Communication Theory 12 (2002): 423–45.

[4] Eric Weitz, The Cambridge Introduction to Comedy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), xi. For more on this point, see John Morreall, Comic Relief: A Comprehensive Philosophy of Humor (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 4.

[5] Weitz, The Cambridge, 2.

[6] Agnes Heller, Immortal Comedy: The Comic Phenomenon in Art, Literature, and Life (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005), 4, 15.

[7] See Don J. Waisanen, “Satirical Visions with Public Consequence? Dennis Miller's Ranting Rhetorical Persona,” American Communication Journal 13 (2011), 24–44; Don J. Waisanen, “Jokes Inviting More than Laughter … Joan Rivers' Political-Rhetorical Worldview,” Comedy Studies 2 (2011), 139–50; Don J. Waisanen, “Standing-Up to the Politics of Comedy,” (presentation, The Language of Institutions: DICTION Studies conference, Austin, TX, February 14–16, 2013).

[8] See Waisanen, “Standing.”

[9] Michael Volpe, “The Persuasive Force of Humor: Cicero's Defense of Caelius,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 63 (1977): 311–23; Aristotle, On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse, trans. George A. Kennedy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 248.

[10] Chaim Perelman and Lucille Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969), 188.

[11] Richard Lanham, The Economics of Attention: Style and Substance in the Age of Information (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006).

[12] Roderick P. Hart, Campaign Talk: Why Elections are Good for Us (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000), 8–10.

[13] Thomas Conley, “What Jokes can Tell us about Arguments,” in A Companion to Rhetoric and Rhetorical Criticism, eds. Walter Jost and Wendy Olmstead (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004), 266–77.

[14] John C. Meyer, “Ronald Reagan and Humor: A Politician's Velvet Weapon,” Communication Studies 41 (1990): 76–88.

[15] Christian Smith and Ben Voth, “The Role of Humor in Political Argument: How ‘Strategery’ and ‘Lockboxes’ Changed a Political Campaign,” Argumentation and Advocacy 39 (2002): 110–29; Deborah C. Robson, “Stereotypes and the Female Politician: A Case Study of Senator Barbara Mikulski,” Communication Quarterly 48 (2000): 205–22.

[16] William G. Chapel, “Humor in the White House: An Interview with Presidential Speechwriter Robert Orben,” Communication Quarterly 26 (1978): 44–49.

[17] Kenneth Burke, Permanence and Change, 3rd ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984).

[18] Timothy Thompson and Anthony Palmieri, “Attitudes toward Counternature,” in Extensions of the Burkean System, ed. James W. Chesebro (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1993), 276–77.

[19] A. Cheree Carlson, “Gandhi and the Comic Frame: ‘Ad Bellum Purificandum,’” Quarterly Journal of Speech 72 (1986): 446–55.

[20] A. Cheree Carlson, “Limitations on the Comic Frame: Some Witty American Women of the Nineteenth Century. Quarterly Journal of Speech 74 (1998): 310.

[21] Kimberly A. Powell, “The Association of Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching: Strategies of a Movement in the Comic Frame,” Communication Quarterly 43 (1995): 86–99.

[22] Ed Appel, “The Rhetoric of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: Comedy and Context in Tragic Collision,” Western Journal of Communication 61 (1997): 376–402; John M. Murphy, “Comic Strategies and the American Covenant,” Communication Studies 40 (1989): 266–79.

[23] Todd Lewis, “Religious Rhetoric and the Comic Frame in The Simpsons,” Journal of Media and Religion 13 (2002): 153–65.

[24] David G. Levasseur, “Edifying Arguments and Perspective by Incongruity: The Perplexing Argumentation Method of Kenneth Burke,” Argumentation and Advocacy 29 (1993): 195–203.

[25] Arnie J. Madsen, “The Comic Frame as a Corrective to Bureaucratization: A Dramatistic Perspective on Argumentation,” Argumentation and Advocacy 29 (1993): 164–77.

[26] Don J. Waisanen, “A Citizen's Guides to Democracy Inaction: Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's Comic Rhetorical Criticism,” Southern Communication Journal 74 (2009): 120.

[27] Caitlin W. Toker, “Debating ‘What Out to Be’: The Comic Frame and Public Moral Argument,” Western Journal of Communication 66 (2002): 53–83; Valerie R. Renegar and George N. Dionisopoulos, “The Dream of a Cyberpunk Future? Entelechy, Dialectical Tension, and the Comic Corrective in William Gibson's Neuromancer,” Southern Communication Journal 76 (2011): 323–41.

[28] Wayne Booth, A Rhetoric of Irony (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1975).

[29] Don J. Waisanen, “Crafting Hyperreal Spaces for Comic Insights: The Onion News Network's Ironic Iconicity,” Communication Quarterly 59 (2011): 508–28.

[30] Brian L. Ott and Beth Bonnstetter. “‘We're at Now, Now’: Spaceballs as Parodic Tourism,” Southern Communication Journal 72 (2007): 309.

[31] Jamie Warner. Tyranny of the Dichotomy: Prophetic Dualism, Irony, and The Onion. The Electronic Journal of Communication 18 (2008), accessed July 1, 2013, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1978286. www.cios.org/www/ejc/v18n24toc.htm

[32] Lisa G. Perks, “Polysemic Scaffolding: Explicating Discursive Clashes in Chappelle's Show,” Communication, Culture & Critique 3 (2010): 270.

[33] Kathryn M. Olson and Clark D. Olson. “Beyond Strategy: A Reader-Centered Analysis of Irony's Dual Persuasive Uses. Quarterly Journal of Speech 90 (2004): 24–52.

[34] See Lisa G. Perks, “Three Satiric Television Decoding Positions,” Communication Studies 63 (2012): 290–308.

[35] Limor Shifman, “Humor in the Age of Digital Reproduction: Continuity and Change in Internet-Based Comic Texts,” International Journal of Communication 1 (2007): 187.

[36] John Carr, “No Laughing Matter: The Power of Cyberspace to Subvert Conventional Media Gatekeepers,” International Journal of Communication 6 (2012): 2825.

[37] Waisanen, “Satirical”; Waisanen, “Jokes”; Waisanen, “Standing.”

[38] Göran Eriksson, “The Management of Applause and Laughter in Live Political Interviews,” Media, Culture & Society 31 (2009): 901–20; Emily K. Vraga, Stephanie Edgerly, Leticia Bode, D. Jasun Carr, Mitchell Bard, Courtney N. Johnson, Young Mie Kim, and Dhavan V. Shah, “The Correspondent, the Comic, and the Combatant: The Consequences of Host Style in Political Talk Shows,” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 89 (2012): 5–22; Arhlene A. Flowers and Cory L. Young, “Parodying Palin: How Tina Fey's Visual and Verbal Impersonations Revived a Comedy Show and Impacted the 2008 Election,” Journal of Visual Literacy 29 (2010): 47–67.

[39] Ji Hoon Park, Nadine G. Gabbadon, and Ariel R. Chernin, “Naturalizing Racial Differences through Comedy: Asian, Black, and White Views on Racial Stereotypes in Rush Hour 2,” Journal of Communication (2006) 56: 157.

[40] Bonnie Dow, “AIDS, Perspective by Incongruity, and Gay Identity in Larry Kramer's ‘1,112 and Counting,’” Communication Studies 45 (1994): 225–40.

[41] Adrienne E. Christiansen and Jeremy J. Hanson, “Comedy as Cure for Tragedy: ACT UP and the Rhetoric of AIDS,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 82 (1996): 157–70.

[42] Anne Demo, “The Guerilla Girls' Comic Politics of Subversion,” Women's Studies in Communication 23 (2000): 133–56; Kara Shultz and Darla Germeroth, “Should we Laugh or Should We Cry? John Callahan's Humor as a Tool to Change Societal Attitudes toward Disability,” Howard Journal of Communication 9 (1998): 229–44; Amy B. Becker and Beth A. Haller, “When Political Comedy Turns Personal: Humor Types, Audience Evaluations, and Attitudes. Howard Journal of Communication 25 (2014): forthcoming.

[43] David G. Levasseur and Kevin W. Dean, “The Dole Humor Myth and the Risks of Recontextualizing Rhetoric,” Southern Communication Journal 62 (1996): 56.

[44] Maurice Charland, “Norms and Laughter in Rhetorical Culture,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 80 (1994): 339–42.

[45] Christine Harold, “Pranking Rhetoric: ‘Culture Jamming’ as Media Activism,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 21 (2004): 189.

[46] Jamie Warner, “Political Culture Jamming: The Dissident Humor of ‘The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.’” Popular Communication 5 (2007): 17.

[47] Ann Johnson, Esteban del Rio, and Alicia Kemmitt, “Missing the Joke: A Reception Analysis of Satirical Texts,” Communication, Culture, & Critique 3 (2010): 396.

[48] Helen A. Shugart, “Parody as Subversive Performance: Denaturalizing Gender and Reconstituting Desire in Ellen,” Text and Performance Quarterly 21 (2001): 95–113.

[49] Davi J. Thornton, “Psych's Comedic Tale of Black–White Friendship and the Lighthearted Affect of ‘Post-Race’ America,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 28 (2011): 424; see also Kumarini Silva and Kaitlynn Mendes, “Women, Humour, and Feminism,” Feminist Media Studies 10 (2010): 353–67.

[50] Jonathan P. Rossing, “Comic Provocations in Racial Culture: Barack Obama and the ‘Politics of Fear,’” Communication Studies 62 (2011): 422.

[51] Paul Chidester, “‘Respect My Authori-tah’: South Park and the Fragmentation/Reification of Whiteness,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 29 (2012): 403–20.

[52] LaChrystal D. Ricke, “Funny or Harmful?: Derogatory Speech on Fox's Family Guy,” Communication Studies 63 (2012): 119–35.

[53] Eleanor Patterson, “Fracturing Tina Fey: A Critical Analysis of Postfeminist Television Comedy Stardom,” The Communication Review 15 (2012): 232.

[54] William L. Youmans, “Humor Against Hegemony: Al-Hurra, Jokes, and the Limits of American Soft Power,” Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication 2 (2009): 76–99.

[55] David Oh and Omotayo O. Banjo, “Outsourcing Postracialism: Voicing Neoliberal Multiculturalism in Outsourced,” Communication Theory 22 (2012): 449–70.

[56] Stephen G. Olbrys, “Disciplining the Carnivalesque: Chris Farley's Exotic Dance,” Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 3 (2006): 240–59.

[57] Paul Martin and Valerie R. Renegar. “‘The Man for His Time’: The Big Lebowski as Carnivalesque Social Critique.” Communication Studies 58 (2007): 299.

[58] Paul Achter, “Comedy in Unfunny Times: News Parody and Carnival after 9/11,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 25 (2008): 274–303; Priscilla M. Meddaugh, “Bakhtin, Colbert, and the Center of Discourse: Is There No ‘Truthiness’ in Humor?” Critical Studies in Media Communication 27 (2010): 376–90.

[59] John C. Meyer, “Humor as a Double-Edged Sword: Four Functions of Humor in Communication,” Communication Theory 10 (2000): 310–31.

[60] Lisa Gring-Pemble and Martha Solomon Watson, “The Rhetorical Limits of Satire: An Analysis of James Finn Garner's Politically Correct Bedtime Stories,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 89 (2003): 132.

[61] Don J. Waisanen, “An Alternative Sense of Humor: The Problems with Crossing Comedy and Politics in Public Discourse,” in Venomous Speech: Problems with American Political Discourse on the Left and Right, ed. J. Clarke Rountree (Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2013).

[62] Michael Pickering and Sharon Lockyer, “Introduction: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Humour and Comedy,” in Beyond a Joke: The Limits of Humour, eds. Sharon Lockyer and Michael Pickering (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009).

[63] Robert Hariman, “Political Parody and Public Culture,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 94 (2008): 247.

[64] Jeffrey P. Jones, Entertaining Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture (New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005).

[65] W. Lance Bennett, “Relief in Hard Times: A Defense of Jon Stewart's Comedy in an Age of Cynicism,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 24 (2007): 278–83; Roderick P. Hart and Joanna Hartelius, “The Political Sins of Jon Stewart,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 24 (2007): 263–72.

[66] See Geoffrey Baym, “The Daily Show: Discursive Integration and the Reinvention of Political Journalism,” Political Communication 22 (2005): 259–76; Geoffrey Baym, “Crafting New Communicative Models in the Televisual Sphere: Political Interviews on The Daily Show,” The Communication Review 10 (2007): 93–115; Geoffrey Baym, “Representation and the Politics of Play: Stephen Colbert's Better Know a District,” Political Communication 24 (2007): 359–76.

[67] Geoffrey Baym and Jeffrey P. Jones, “News Parody in Global Perspective: Politics, Power, and Resistance,” Popular Communication 10 (2012): 2–13.

[68] Jeffrey P. Jones, “More Than ‘Fart Noises and Funny Faces’: The Daily Show's Coverage of the U.S. Recession,” Popular Communication 8 (2010): 165–69; Chad Painter and Louis Hodges, “Mocking the News: How The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Holds Traditional Broadcast News Accountable,” Journal of Mass Media Ethics 25 (2010): 257–74.

[69] Jonathan Gray, Jeffrey P. Jones, and Ethan Thompson, “The State of Satire, the Satire of State,” in Satire TV: Politics and Comedy in the Post-Network Era, eds. Jonathan Gray, Jeffrey P. Jones, and Ethan Thompson (New York: New York University Press, 2009), 3–36.

[70] Amber Day, Satire and Dissent: Interventions into Contemporary Political Debate (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2011), 1.

[71] Stephen G. Olbrys, “Seinfeld's Democratic Vistas,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 22 (2005): 390.

[72] Art Herbig and Aaron Hess, “Convergent Critical Rhetoric at the Rally to Restore Sanity: Exploring the Intersection of Rhetoric, Ethnography, and Documentary Production,” Communication Studies 63 (2012): 269–89.

[73] Angela D. Abel and Michael Barthel, “Appropriation of Mainstream News: How Saturday Night Live Changed the Political Discussion,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 30 (2013): 1–16.

[74] Baym and Jones, “News,” 2.

[75] Matthew A. Baum, “Soft News and Political Knowledge: Evidence of Absence or Absence of Evidence?” Political Communication 20 (2003): 173–90; Matthew A. Baum, Soft News Goes to War: Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy in the New Media Age (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003); Matthew A. Baum, “Sex, Lies, and War: How Soft News Brings Foreign Policy to the Inattentive Public,” American Political Science Review 96 (2002): 91–110; Markus Prior, “Any Good News in Soft News? The Impact of Soft News Preference on Political Knowledge,” Political Communication 20 (2003): 149–71; Markus Prior “News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout,” American Journal of Political Science 49 (2005): 577–92; Markus Prior, Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

[76] Baum, Soft News.

[77] Baum, Soft News.

[78] Prior, Post.

[79] Barry A. Hollander, “Late-Night Learning: Do Entertainment Programs Increase Political Campaign Knowledge for Young Viewers?” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 49 (2005): 402–15.

[80] Young Mie Kim and John Vishak, “Just Laugh! You Don't Need to Remember: The Effects of Entertainment Media on Political Information Acquisition and Information Processing in Political Judgment,” Journal of Communication 58 (2008): 338–60.

[81] Young M. Baek and Magdalena E. Wojcieszak, “Don't Expect too Much! Learning from Late-Night Comedy and Knowledge Item Difficulty,” Communication Research 36 (2009): 783–809.

[82] Michael A. Xenos and Amy B. Becker, “Moments of Zen: Effects of The Daily Show on Information Seeking and Political Learning,” Political Communication 26 (2009): 317–32.

[83] Xiaoxia Cao, “Political Comedy Shows and Knowledge about Primary Campaigns: The Moderating Effects of Age and Education,” Mass Communication & Society 11 (2008): 43–61.

[84] Lauren Feldman and Dannagal Young, “Late-Night Comedy as a Gateway to Traditional News: An Analysis of Time Trends in News Attention among Late-Night Comedy Viewers during the 2004 Presidential Primaries,” Political Communication 25 (2008): 401–22.

[85] Matthew A. Baum, “Talking the Vote: Why Presidential Candidates Hit the Talk Show Circuit,” American Journal of Political Science 49 (2005): 213–34.

[86] Paul R. Brewer and Xiaoxia Cao, “Candidate Appearances on Soft News Shows and Public Knowledge about Primary Campaigns,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 50 (2006): 18–35.

[87] Matthew A. Baum and Angela S. Jamison, “The Oprah effect: How soft news helps inattentive citizens vote consistently,” Journal of Politics 68 (2006): 946–59; Patricia Moy, Michael A. Xenos, and Verena K. Hess, “Communication and Citizenship: Mapping the Political Effects of Infotainment,” Mass Communication & Society 8 (2005): 111–31.

[88] Amy B. Becker, “What About Those Interviews? The Impact of Exposure to Political Comedy and Cable News on Factual Recall and Anticipated Political Expression,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research (2013).

[89] David S. Niven, Robert Lichter, and Daniel Amundson, “The Political Content of Late Night Comedy,” The International Journal of Press/Politics 8 (2003): 118–33; Dannagal Young, “Late-Night Comedy and the Salience of the Candidates' Caricatured Traits in the 2000 Election,” Mass Communication & Society 9 (2006): 339–66.

[90] Dannagal Goldthwaite Young, “Late-Night Comedy in Election 2000: Its Influence on Candidate Trait Ratings and the Moderating Effects of Political Knowledge and Partisanship,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 48 (2004): 1–22.

[91] Dannagal Goldthwaite Young, “Late-Night Comedy in Election 2000: Its Influence on Candidate Trait Ratings and the Moderating Effects of Political Knowledge and Partisanship,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 48 (2004): 1–22.

[92] Michael Xenos, Patricia Moy, and Amy Becker, “Making Sense of The Daily Show: Understanding the Role of Partisan Heuristics in Political Comedy Effects,” in The Stewart/Colbert Effect: Essays on the Real Impacts of Fake News, ed. Amarnath Amarasingam (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2011): 47–62.

[93] Jody C. Baumgartner, Jonathan S. Morris, and Natasha L. Walth, “The Fey Effect: Young Adults, Political Humor, and Perceptions of Sarah Palin in the 2008 Presidential Election Campaign,” Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (2012): 95–104; Sarah Esralew and Dannagal Goldthwaite Young,” The Influence of Parodies on Mental Models: Exploring the Tina Fey–Sarah Palin Phenomenon,” Communication Quarterly 60 (2012): 338–52; Patricia Moy, Michael A. Xenos, and Verena K. Hess, “Priming Effects of Late-Night Comedy,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 18 (2006): 198–210; Young, “Late-Night Comedy and.”

[94] Amy B. Becker, “Comedy Types and Political Campaigns: The Differential Influence of Other-Directed Hostile Humor and Self-Ridicule on Candidate Evaluations,” Mass Communication and Society 15 (2012): 791–812.

[95] Lance R. Holbert, John M. Tchernev, Whitney O. Walther, Sarah E. Esralew, and Kathryn Benski,” Young Voter Perceptions of Political Satire as Persuasion: A Focus on Perceived Influence, Persuasive Intent, and Message Strength,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 57 (2013): 170–86; Natalie J. Stroud and Ashley Muddiman, “Selective Exposure, Tolerance, and Satirical News,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research (2013).

[96] Amy B. Becker, Michael A. Xenos, and Don J. Waisanen, “Sizing up The Daily Show: Audience Perceptions of Political Comedy Programming,” Atlantic Journal of Communication 18 (2010): 144–57; Kevin Coe, David Tewksbury, Bradley J. Bond, Kristin L. Drogos, Robert W. Porter, Ashley Yahn, and Yuanyuan Zhang, “Hostile News: Partisan Use and Perceptions of Cable News Programming,” Journal of Communication 58 (2008): 201–19.

[97] Baym, The Daily Show,” Lauren Feldman, “The News about Comedy, Young Audiences, The Daily Show, and Evolving Notions of Journalism,” Journalism 8 (2007): 406–27.

[98] Jonathan S. Morris, “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Audience Attitude Change during the 2004 Party Conventions,” Political Behavior 31 (2009): 79–102.

[99] Jody C. Baumgartner and Jonathan S. Morris, “One ‘Nation’ under Stephen? The Effects of The Colbert Report on American Youth,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 52 (2008): 622–43.

[100] Heather L. LaMarre, Kristen D. Landreville, and Michael A. Beam, “The Irony of Satire Political Ideology and the Motivation to See What You Want to See in The Colbert Report,” The International Journal of Press/Politics 14 (2009): 212–31.

[101] Becker, “Comedy Types.”

[102] Robert Hariman, “Political Parody and Public Culture,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 94 (2008): 247–72; Roderick P. Hart and E. Johanna Hartelius, “The Political Sins of Jon Stewart,” Critical Studies in Media Communication 24 (2007): 263–72.

[103] Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan S. Morris, “The Daily Show Effect: Candidate Evaluations, Efficacy, and American Youth,” American Politics Research 34 (2006): 341–67.

[104] For a review, see Amy B. Becker, “Political Humor as Democratic Relief? The Effects of Exposure to Comedy and Straight News on Trust and Efficacy,” Atlantic Journal of Communication 19 (2011): 235–50.

[105] Lance R. Holbert, Jennifer L. Lambe, Anthony D. Dudo, and Kristin A. Carlton, “Primacy Effects of The Daily Show and National TV News Viewing: Young Viewers, Political Gratifications, and Internal Political Self-Efficacy,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 51 (2007): 20–38. For a discussion of the moderating role of political efficacy, see also Jeremy Polk, Dannagal G. Young, and R. Lance Holbert, “Humor Complexity and Political Influence: An Elaboration Likelihood Approach to the Effects of Humor Type in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” Atlantic Journal of Communication 17 (2009): 202–19.

[106] Xiaoxia Cao and Paul R. Brewer, “Political Comedy Shows and Public Participation in Politics,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 20 (2008): 90–99; Lindsay Hoffman and Tiffany L. Thomson, “The Effect of Television Viewing on Adolescents' Civic Participation: Political Efficacy as a Mediating Mechanism,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 53 (2009): 3–21.

[107] Becker, “Political”; Lindsay H. Hoffman and Dannagal G. Young, “Satire, Punch Lines, and the Nightly News: Untangling Media Effects on Political Participation,” Communication Research Reports 28 (2011): 159–68.

[108] Baumgartner and Morris, “One ‘Nation.’”

[109] Moy, Xenos, and Hess, “Communication.”

[110] Cao and Brewer, “Political.”

[111] Hoffman and Young, “Satire.”

[112] Kristen D. Landreville, R. Lance Holbert, and Heather L. LaMarre, “The Influence of Late-Night TV Comedy Viewing on Political Talk: A Moderated-Mediation Model,” The International Journal of Press/Politics 15 (2010): 482–98; Hoon Lee, “Communication Mediation Model of Late-Night Comedy: The Mediating Role of Structural Features of Interpersonal Talk Between Comedy Viewing and Political Participation,” Mass Communication and Society 15 (2012): 647–71.

[113] Becker, “What.”

[114] Robin L. Nabi, Emily Moyer-Gusé, and Sahara Byrne, “All Joking Aside: A Serious Investigation into the Persuasive Effect of Funny Social Issue Messages,” Communication Monographs 74 (2007): 29–54; Dannagal Young, “The Privileged Role of the Late-Night Joke: Exploring Humor's Role in Disrupting Argument Scrutiny,” Media Psychology 11 (2008): 119–42.

[115] Robin L. Nabi, Emily Moyer-Gusé, and Sahara Byrne, “All Joking Aside: A Serious Investigation into the Persuasive Effect of Funny Social Issue Messages,” Communication Monographs 74 (2007): 29–54; Dannagal Young, “The Privileged Role of the Late-Night Joke: Exploring Humor's Role in Disrupting Argument Scrutiny,” Media Psychology 11 (2008): 119–42.

[116] Nabi et al., “All.”

[117] Gray, Jones, and Thompson, “The State”; Dannagal G. Young and Russell M. Tisinger, “Dispelling Late-Night Myths News Consumption among Late-Night Comedy Viewers and the Predictors of Exposure to Various Late-Night Shows,” The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 11 (2006): 113–34.

[118] Coe, Tewksbury, Bond, Drogos, Porter, Yahn, and Zhang, “Hostile”; Jay D. Hmielowski, R. Lance Holbert, and Jayeon Lee, “Predicting the Consumption of Political TV Satire: Affinity for Political Humor, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report,” Communication Monographs 78 (2011): 96–114.

[119] Becker, “Comedy”; R. Lance Holbert, Jay Hmielowski, Parul Jain, Julie Lather, and Alyssa Morey, “Adding Nuance to the Study of Political Humor Effects: Experimental Research on Juvenalian Satire versus Horatian Satire,” American Behavioral Scientist 55 (2011): 187–211; R. Lance Holbert, John M. Tchernev, Whitney O. Walther, Sarah E. Esralew, and Kathryn Benski, “Young Voter Perceptions of Political Satire as Persuasion: A Focus on Perceived Influence, Persuasive Intent, and Message Strength,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 57 (2013): 170–86.

[120] R. Lance Holbert, “A Typology for the Study of Entertainment Television and Politics,” American Behavioral Scientist 49 (2005): 436–53.

[121] Dannagal G. Young, “Laughter, Learning, or Enlightenment? Viewing and Avoidance Motivations Behind The Daily Show and The Colbert Report,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 57 (2013): 153–69.

[122] Tamar Liebes and Elihu Katz, The Export of Meaning: Cross-Cultural Readings of Dallas (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1993); Neil Vidmar and Milton Rokeach, “Archie Bunker's Bigotry: A Study in Selective Perception and Exposure,” Journal of Communication 24 (1974): 36–47.

[123] Baum, Soft News; Prior, Post-Broadcast.

[124] See Hariman, “In Defense”; Hart and Hartelius, “The Political.”