Political Satire, Stifling Free Speech?

From teen girls suffering from eating disorders because of impossibly thin celebrities to popular depictions of Muslim violence, there has been much said about the way in which media portrayals of groups influence subsequent self-identity formation (Grabe et al., 2008; Karim, 2003). By identifying and addressing those issues, progress has been made toward empowering groups that have been oppressed by popular culture. However, little has been done to address the negative stereotypes surrounding the subscribers to certain political ideologies within popular culture. Among the various mediums reinforcing political stereotypes is late-night infotainment (programs which combine news information with a more entertainment-oriented format than traditional news counterparts).

Although much has been explored and conjectured about the effects of entertainment news programs such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, there is still much ambiguity surrounding the effects and implications of these programs. The Colbert Report and The Daily Show each boast east boast millions of viewers five nights a week. As more traditional news sources decline in popularity, specifically among younger audiences, the impact of these satirical news programs is only likely to increase. Based on research conducted by Coe, Tewksbury, Bond et al. (2008), The Daily Show is perceived by many, but (most importantly for the purposes of this study) overwhelmingly by conservatives, to be liberal in nature. While there is certainly much blame to go around (conservatives are just as guilty of negatively portraying liberals), the popularity of these liberal programs, especially among young adults, makes it imperative that any possible ramifications on societal discourse are understood and investigated.

Current scholarship on the topic of infotainment news programming is sparse at best. Current literature merely addresses topics such as the amount of political knowledge garnered by watching these programs and general trends among viewers. More specifically, no studies can be found on the viewers holding opposing opinions to those espoused on the shows and the likelihood of those viewers to voice those opinions.

Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann's Spiral of Silence Theory (1974) holds that people are less likely to voice their opinions if they feel that it is in conflict with the majority opinion. With the wild popularity of programs like The Daily Show and no conservative equivalent to turn to, there is a perceived liberal monopoly on the political media consumption of American youth. A significant portion of young people is compelled to tune in or to be at a basic disadvantage when engaging in political discourse with their peers. Furthermore, the Spiral of Silence Theory also holds that "hard core" members of the perceived minority are more likely to espouse their opinions. In the case of television shows addressed here, it could be argued that the popularity of these programs is resulting in the silencing of an entire generation of potential political conservatives, in essence stomping out authentic free speech as well as contributing to the polarization of American politics.

The variable explored by research investigating Spiral of Silence Theory (Noelle-Neumann, 1974), which will serve as the theoretical framework for this study, is the likelihood of a minority or perceived minority to voice their opinion or contribute to debate and conversation (Moy, Domke & Stamm, 2001; Neuwirth, Frederick & Mayo, 2007; Hayes, 2007). Because humans are driven to seek approval from the rest of society, the minority is less likely to voice their opinion for fear of isolation from a seemingly hostile majority. Furthermore, the greater the perceived threat of isolation, the stronger the influence of the spiral. It may only be a perceived threat because public opinion is tough to nail down and conception of it can only be based on personal observations.

Noelle-Neumann was inspired by the German federal elections in the 1960s. Although the two major parties were actually neck-and-neck in the weeks leading up to the election, incorrect polling data suggested that one party was ahead of the other. Consequently, the public did in fact swing their vote to the supposed frontrunner. The German people perceived public opinion to be in favor of one party because the polling data so suggested. Thus, the theory was born. In terms of mass media and media communication, Noelle-Neumann contends that the omnipresence of the media and the media's tendency toward homogeneity creates a somewhat one-dimensional perception of public opinion--hence an immense (and not definitely measurable) impact on the public at large.

Vallone, Ross and Lepper (1985) define the hostile media phenomenon as the tendency of individuals to perceive those sources which are in opposition to their own viewpoints as biased. In research conducted by Eveland and Shah (2003), it is found that perceptions of media bias are "positively related to conversations with ideologically like-minded individuals" and that the perceptions tend to be reported more highly among Republicans than Democrats. Coe, et al. (2008) find in their research of hostile media phenomenon that conservatives are more likely to view The Daily Show's content as more hostile and biased than their liberal counterparts.

In one article exploring primacy effect and The Daily Show, Holbert et al. (2007) find that primary consumption of the program causes viewers to experience less political media gratification when viewing traditional news and public affairs programs. This effect is even stronger among younger audiences and those who do not consider themselves politically astute. Therefore, the millions who tune in to The Daily Show will necessarily become increasingly dependent on the show for news and information on current events.

Because of their entertainment driven format and use of comedy, one of the main criticisms of programs such as The Daily Show is that viewers are deprived of pertinent political information that is assumed to be garnered from traditional news outlets. In one report on the impact of late-night entertainment on political knowledge, Kim and Vishak (2008) find that, in concurrence with popular criticism, viewers of entertainment news programs like The Daily Show do not retain as much information and were less likely to seek out media concerning a particular topic than those who viewed more traditional news outlets.

In contrast, Young and Tisinger (2006) compare the political knowledge of The Daily Show's audiences as well s the audiences of Jay Leno's The Tonight Show and David Letterman's Late Show. The findings of this study show that Jon Stewart's typical viewers are more likely to be male, actively following politics, and consuming other cable news programs, whereas viewers of the other two shows "are more likely to be tuning in to local news than non-viewers but do not demonstrate the political sophistication, interest, or ideological leaning of The Daily Show's audience" (Youn & Tisinger, 2006). However, the authors also divulge that the methods used in their study have certain limitations; because there is no control for media consumption in general, they cannot be sure that political knowledge held by certain study participants is the direct result of viewing any particular program.

Further analysis by Feldman and Young (2008) confirmed the findings of Young and Tisinger. Feldman and Young's research also suggests increased political engagement among The Daily Show's audience. During the 2008 presidential election, viewers of the program paid more attention to the media surrounding the election that non-viewers. Furthermore, the study's findings also suggest the viewers of The Daily Show are less likely to be swayed by traditional campaign events such as a rally or town-hall.

Based on the preceding body of work, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1: The popularity of alternative news programs, particularly The Daily Show, creates, among youth, a false perception of public opinion, thus rendering those with more moderate or conservative political leanings silent for fear of isolation from their peers.
References

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 (3), 113-134.

Moy, P., Domke, D., & Stamm, K. (2001). THE SPIRAL OF SILENCE AND PUBLIC OPINION ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78 (1), 7-25. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Neuwirth, K., Frederick, E., & Mayo, C. (2007). The Spiral of Silence and Fear of Isolation. Journal of Communication , 57 (3), 450-468. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00352.x.

Hayes, A. (2007). Exploring the Forms of Self-Censorship: On the Spiral of Silence and the Use of Opinion Expression Avoidance Strategies. Journal of Communication , 57 (4), 785-802.

Feldman, L., & Young, D. (2008). 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 (4), 401-422.

Coe, K., Tewksbury, D., Bond, B., Drogos, K., Porter, R., Yahn, A., et al. (2008). Hostile News: Partisan Use and Perceptions of Cable News Programming. Journal of Communication , 58 (2), 201-219. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00381.x.

Eveland Jr., W., & Shah, D. (2003). The Impact of Individual and Interpersonal Factors on Perceived News Media Bias.Political Psychology, 24 (1), 101-117. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Kim, Y.M. & Vishak, J. (2008). 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 (2), 338-360. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00388.x.

Holbert, R., Lambe, J., Dudo, A., & Carlton, K. (2007). 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(1), 20-38.