Sizing up The Daily Show: Audience perceptions of political comedy programming

Atlantic Journal of Communication

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 144-157

  Becker, Amy B ^a   Xenos, Michael A ^b   Waisanen, Don J ^c  

^a TOWSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^c CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79960527818     PISSN: 15456870     EISSN: 15456889     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15456871003742112     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3, 265-299.
2. Baum, M. A. (2002). Sex, lies, and war: How soft news brings foreign policy to the inattentive public. American Political Science Review, 96, 91-109.
3. Baumgartner, J., & Morris, J. S. (2006). The Daily Show effect: Candidate evaluations, efficacy, and American youth. American Politics Research, 34, 341-367.
4. Baym, G. (2007). Crafting new communicative models in the televisual sphere: Political interviews on The Daily Show. The Communication Review, 10, 93-115.
5. Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism. New York: Oxford University Press.
6. Coe, K., Tewksbury, D., Bond, B. J., Drogos, K. L., Porter, R. W., Yahn, A., et al. (2008). Hostile news: Partisan use and perceptions of cable news programming. Journal of Communication, 58, 201-219.
7. Dalton, R. J., Beck, P. A., & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Partisan cues and the media: Information flows in the 1992 election. The American Political Science Review, 92, 111-126.
8. Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1-15.
9. Duck, J. M., Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1995). The perceived influence of AIDS advertising: Third-person effects in the context of positive media content. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 305-325.
10. Eveland, W. P., Jr., Nathanson, A. I., Detenber, B. H, & McLeod, D. M. (1999). Rethinking the social distance corollary: Perceived likelihood of exposure and the third-person perception. Communication Research, 26, 275-302.
11. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row.
12. Gibbon, P., & Durkin, K. (1995). The third person effect: Social distance and perceived media bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 597-602.
13. Gunther, A. C. (1995). Overrating the x-rating: The third-person perception and support for censorship of pornography. Journal of Communication, 45(1), 27-38.
14. Gunther, A. C., & Chia, S. C. (2001). Predicting pluralistic ignorance: The hostile media perception and its consequences. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 688-701.
15. Gunther, A. C., & Christen, C. T. (2002). Projection or persuasive press? Contrary effects of personal opinion and perceived news coverage on estimates of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 52(1), 177-195.
16. Gunther, A. C., & Liebhart, J. L. (2006). Broad reach or biased source? Decomposing the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 56, 449-466.
17. Gunther, A. C., & Mundy, P. (1993). Biased optimism and the third-person effect. Journalism Quarterly, 70(1), 58-67.
18. Gunter, A. C., & Schmitt, K. (2004). Mapping boundaries of the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 54(1), 55-70.
19. Gunther, A. C., & Storey, J. D. (2003). The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Communication, 53, 199-215.
20. Holbert, R. L. (2005). A typology for the study of entertainment television and politics. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 436-453.
21. Hollander, B. A. (2005). Late-night learning: Do entertainment programs increase political campaign knowledge for young viewers? Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 49, 402-415.
22. Hoorens, V., & Ruiter, S. (1996). The optimal impact phenomenon: Beyond the third-person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 599-610.
23. LaMarre, H. L., Landreville, K. D., & Beam, M. A. (2009). The irony of satire: Political ideology and the motivation to see what you want to see in The Colbert Report. International Journal of Press/Politics, 14, 212-231.
24. Lambe, J. L., & McLeod, D. M. (2005). Understanding third-person perception processes: Predicting perceived impact on self and others for multiple expressive contexts. Journal of Communication, 55, 277-291.
25. McLeod, D. M., Detenber, B. H., & Eveland, W. P. (2001). Behind the third-person effect: Differentiating perceptual processes for self and other. Journal of Communication, 51, 678-695.
26. McLeod, D. M., Eveland, W. P., & Nathanson, A. I. (1997). Support for censorship of violent and misogynic rap lyrics: An analysis of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 24, 153-174.
27. Moy, P., Xenos, M. A., & Hess, V. K. (2005). Communication and citizenship: Mapping the political effects of infotainment. Mass Communication & Society, 8, 111-131.
28. Moy, P., Xenos, M. A., & Hess, V. K. (2006). Priming effects of late-night comedy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18, 198-210.
29. Nabi, R. L., Moyer-Guse, E., & Byrne, S. (2007). All joking aside: A serious investigation into the persuasive effect of funny social issue messages. Communication Monographs, 74, 29-54.
30. Paul, B., Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. (2000). The third-person effect: A meta-analysis of the perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication & Society, 3(1), 57-85.
31. Perloff, R. M. (1999). The third-person effect: A critical review and synthesis. Media Psychology, 1, 353-378.
32. Perloff, R. M. (2002). The third-person effect. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 489-506). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. Prior, M. (2003). Any good news in soft news? The impact of soft news preference on Political knowledge. Political Communication, 20, 149-171.
34. Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.
35. Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. (2001). Third-person perception of television violence: The role of self-perceived knowledge. Media Psychology, 3, 211-236.
36. Schmitt, K. M., Gunther, A. C., & Liebhart, J. L. (2004). Why partisans see mass media as biased. Communication Research, 31, 623-641.
37. Stanley, A. (2007, February 17). Television review: It's reported, they mock, you decide. New York Times, p. B9.
38. Steinberg, J. (2006, December 24). Dizzying adventures on the anchor carousel. New York Times, p. 38.
39. Sun, Y., Pan, Z., & Shen, L. (2008). Understanding the third-person perception: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 58, 280-300.
40. Tsfati, Y., & Cohen, J. (2005). Democratic consequences of hostile media perceptions: The case of Gaza settlers. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 10(4), 28-51.
41. Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 577-585.
42. Xenos, M. A., & Becker, A. B. (2009). Moments of Zen: Effects of The Daily Show on information seeking and political learning. Political Communication, 26, 317-332.
43. Xenos, M. A., Moy, P., & Becker, A. B. (2009, May). Making sense of The Daily Show: Understanding the role of partisan heuristics in political comedy effects. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Chicago.
44. Young, D. G. (2004). 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(1), 2-22.
45. Young, D. G. (2008). The privileged role of the late-night joke: Exploring humor's role in disrupting argument scrutiny. Media Psychology, 11, 119-142.
46. Young, D. G., & Tisinger, R. M. (2006). 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, 113-134.
47. Zaller, J. (2003). A new standard of news quality: Burglar alarms for the monitorial citizen. Political Communication, 20, 109-130.
48. Zillmann, D. (1980). Anatomy of suspense. In P.H. Tannenbaum (Ed.), The entertainment functions of television (pp. 133-163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
49. Zillmann, D. (1983). Disparagement humor. In P. E. McGhee & J. H. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of humor research: Vol. 1. Basic issues (pp. 85-107). New York: Springer-Verlag.