Texas Christian University From the SelectedWorks of Daxton R Stewart August, 2007 The Daily Show Effect Revisited: How satire contributes to political participation and trust in young audiences Daxton R Stewart, Texas Christian University Available at: http://works.bepress.com/daxton_stewart/13/
: How satire contributes to political participation and trust in young audiences Paper presented in the Entertainment Studies Interest Group at the AEJMC 2007 annual conference in Washington, D.C. By Daxton R. Stewart University of Missouri
ABSTRACT In 2006, Baumgartner and Morris examined what they called The Daily Show Effect, which suggested that viewership of the humor-based news show on Comedy Central corresponded with an increase in political efficacy but a decrease in perceptions of trustworthiness of candidates. This effect was further examined in this study in the context of political participation and trust in politicians in general. A survey was conducted of 650 participants age 18 to 22, asking questions about respondents media consumption, political participation at both active and passive levels, and perceptions of political trust. Results showed that viewership of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report correlated to increased levels of political participation but decreased levels of political trust, suggesting a possible extension of The Daily Show Effect. In addition, consumption of this brand of soft news differed significantly from consumption of more traditional hard news media; while greater consumption of both correlated to higher levels of political participation, hard news consumption was associated with more positive views of political trustworthiness. 1
The Daily Show Effect Revisited: How satire contributes to political participation and trust in young audiences Many scholars have bemoaned the general decrease in political participation in America over the last half century, particularly among younger voters (Schudson, 1999; Putnam, 2000; Macedo, 2005). Although voter turnout peaked in the 2004 presidential election, levels largely returned to normal in the 2006 midterm elections, despite predictions that widespread calls for change would lead to increased participation (McDonald, 2006). Younger citizens are less likely to participate in the political process, and they are also less likely to be knowledgeable about politics (Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996). However, younger audiences may be supplementing their political news knowledge with non-traditional sources, such as soft news programming that focuses more on entertainment than information (Baum, 2003). Satire has long been a fixture of American political commentary, and it is now emerging as a way to inform and perhaps to increase participation of younger generations. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, a pair of shows on Comedy Central that air four nights a week, have parlayed the humor factor of political news into solid ratings and a foothold in the political culture. Politicians routinely appear on the shows, even against the advice of campaign strategists and party bosses (Kaplan, 2007). Graber (2006) noted that The Daily Show proves that serious commentary can be entertaining and can appeal to large audiences, including normally elusive young citizens. Young citizens may be learning more about the political process as a result. However, any gains in political knowledge and participation that humor-based news may 2
provide may be offset by lessened trust in the political system. Satire succeeds in part by skewering politicians, and levels of trust are unlikely to increase for audiences that get a portion of their political news from comedy shows. One recent study referred to this phenomenon as The Daily Show Effect (Baumgartner & Morris, 2006). This paper examines the relationships between consumption by young audiences of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, political participation, and trust in government. As Graber suggests, these shows have potential to reach and inform younger audiences in a way that traditional broadcast news has not in recent years. Building on the recent thread of research about The Daily Show, this study helps to inform discussions concerning the growth of political satire as a media product and its impact on public discourse. LITERATURE REVIEW Political Satire and The Daily Show Political satire has a rich history in America, dating to the colonial period and flourishing as the Revolutionary War beckoned (Granger, 1960). Traditionally, poking fun at politicans has been one of the focal points of American satire. Whitfield (1988) traced the history of American political humor from sources ranging from Benjamin Franklin to Mark Twain to Will Rogers to Saturday Night Live to the present, suggesting that satire serves as an index, though hardly the most significant or even reliable one, of popular will and opinion. Satire has the potential to shift public discourse about politics, as has been noted in the case of Britain s satire boom in the 1960s, when fake news shows emerged as a tool for public discourse and social commentary (Wagg, 2002). In 3
this instance, Wagg noted that politics were revealed to be more about performance more than substance, ultimately changing the way British politics were discussed and conducted. He suggested that political satire authorized a discourse in British politics that was more permissive, populist and publicity oriented while fostering Britain s culture of a fundamentally hedonistic attitude to politics, in which public life is seen as absurd and citizenship is no more than an option. The fake-news format that is at the heart of The Daily Show s efforts at political satire has been studied by numerous authors who have noted both benefits and drawbacks regarding political participation and perceptions of political trust. These studies typically approach The Daily Show as soft news, as conceptualized by Baum (2003): (W)hereas traditional news programs report the news in order to inform the audience, at least in some significant measure, the soft news media seek almost exclusively to entertain the audience. Baum argues that in the modern era, with television serving as the primary source of news for many Americans, soft news occasionally does convey substantive information concerning a select few high-profile political issues, and that the public will be attentive with the potential of becoming informed about the political issues. When important events arise, such as a war, Baum suggests that substantive information can be piggybacked on to information primarily presented for its entertainment value. But as the divide between traditional news and entertainment shrinks, The Daily Show could be doing more than just piggybacking. A content analysis by Fox, Koloen and Sahin (2007) found that in the months leading up to the 2004 presidential election, both The Daily Show and the three major networks focused more on entertainment values than substance in their coverage. While the networks focused more on hype than 4
substance, The Daily Show focused more on humor that substance. The study also found that The Daily Show contains just as much substance as the network newscasts, suggesting that even as soft news, The Daily Show may have legitimacy as a source of political information that makes it as much a source of political news as entertainment. Young and Tisinger (2006) reached a similar conclusion, noting that Daily Show viewing may be more akin to traditional political information consumption than as a pure entertainment activity. The authors examined late-night humor during the 2004 presidential campaign, finding that young audiences who watch The Daily Show are a group distinct from viewers of late-night comedy such as Tonight Show with Jay Leno or Late Night with David Letterman. The authors also found that young viewers who watched more late-night comedy also tended to consume more news from traditional sources, suggesting that the soft news aspect of comedy could serve as a gateway to traditional news consumption, consistent with Baum s conceptualization. However, Baumgartner and Morris (2006) found that Baum s soft news concept may not fit The Daily Show perfectly. Using both experiments and survey data, the authors uncovered what they called The Daily Show Effect, a mixture of positive and negative impact on political participation and discourse. Daily Show viewing was associated with lowered support of presidential candidates and the media and increased cynicism, but viewing also contributed to public discourse by increasing internal efficacy, reflected in the finding that viewers believed that politics were simpler and more understandable. 5
Political Participation Regardless of the measure used, political participation has plummeted over the last four decades, particularly in younger audiences. The most common measure used to study political participation is voter turnout, which represents not just citizen participation, but also faith in the political system; failure to engage in it suggests declining fervor for the religion of democracy (Schudson, 1999). Even considering the spike in voter turnout during the hotly contested 2004 presidential election, turnout of voters between ages 18 and 24 has trended downwards since 1960, a troublesome fact considering that habits of political participation are largely formed during a person s adolescence (Macedo, 2005). In addition, recent increases in turnout in the 2004 presidential elections and 2006 midterm elections to be largely illusory when other factors, such as the pool of eligible voters and the variety of contested local and state races are considered (McDonald, 2006). But showing up at the voting booth on the occasional Tuesday is not the only way for a person to participate in the American political process. Voting may be the most obvious behavioral manifestation of interest in politics, but people engage in numerous other activities that are inherently political. Conway (2000) conceptualizes political participation as including both active involvement and passive involvement in politics. Active involvement in which a person attempts to influence government policy and the selection of candidates, includes behaviors such as registering to vote, voting, working for a political campaign, seeking elective office and writing letters to the editor about policy matters. Passive involvement, on the other hand, includes supportive or 6
ceremonial activities such as attending civic events or simply paying attention to politics. These active and passive behaviors have consistently declined, particularly among young citizens, since at least the 1970s (Putnam, 2000; Macedo, 2005). Recent research on The Daily Show has focused more on behaviors such as political news consumption (Young & Tisinger, 2006) and understanding of politics (Baumgartner & Morris, 2006). However, any impact this brand of political satire is having on political participation, as conceptualized by Conway, has not been examined. Political Trust The level of trust in the American political system has also dropped to concerning levels since the 1960s, when results of one survey showed that 76 percent of people said they trusted government. By 1996, that number was 32 percent, and the media, particularly television, has received much of the blame for the decrease (Conway, 2000). Mass media can have a socializing influence on young audiences, informing them about the political process, and exposure can be associated with people s feelings about politics, including apathy, cynicism, and lack of trust (Graber, 2006). Conceptually, political trust concerns the competence, motivations and ethics of politicians and government institutions. Trust reflects evaluations of whether or not political authorities and institutions are performing in accordance with normative expectations held by the public (Listhaug, 1990). Surveys have shown that increasing mistrust stems from perceptions that politicians lack integrity and that the government is wasteful, has the wrong priorities, and caters to special interests (Nye, Zelikow & King, 1997). Thus, political trust concerns both politicians character, such as perceived 7
veracity (Warren, 2006), and politicans behavior, such as connections with corruption or political scandal (Bowler & Karp, 2004). Warren (2006) characterizes aspects of political behavior, particularly the ability to keep promises consistent with supporters interests, as first-order trust, distinguishable from second-order trust, specifically public perceptions of a politican s sincerity and propensity for truthfulness. For democractic institutions, public distrust may serve a beneficial role. A healthy skepticism about government may promote interest and involvement in electoral and policy affairs (Schudson, 1999). This kind of distrust largely stems from the structure of American democracy (Mansbridge, 1997). But the same lack of trust could also result in cynicism and a drop in participation, expressing a deeper alienation or aimlessness, especially among the young (Schudson, 1999). Another drawback of the declining levels of trust is the impact on public officials, who could avoid difficult policy matters or could avoid seeking office because of their sensitivity to public disapprobation (Hibbing & Theiss-Morse, 2002). Numerous studies have noted that there is no uniform connection between trust and participation (Macedo 2005). This study proposes to examine any relationship between these two concepts and consumption of political satire in the form of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. HYPOTHESES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS The literature suggests that consumption of soft news, such as political satire that focuses more on entertaining than informing the audience, can lead to more understanding of and attention to politics. Thus, H1 predicts that political participation, 8
including active and passive behavior, will positively correlate with viewing of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. H1: The more young people watch The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, the more likely they are to participate in politics. In addition, the literature suggests that skepticism about politics can have particularly negative consequences for young audiences, and that political satire can foster negative feelings about political candidates and cynicism about the political process. Thus, H2 predicts that trust in politicians will negatively correlate with viewing of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. H2: The more young people watch The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, the less likely they are to express trust in politicians. Young audiences of The Daily Show are likely to get information from a number of different media sources, including traditional news outlets (Young & Tisinger, 2006). However, the relationship between consumption of traditional and non-traditional news outlets, political participation, and perceptions of political trust have not been explored. Thus, the following research question was proposed. RQ1: How do young consumers of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report differ from young consumers of traditional news outlets in political participation and in political trust? METHOD This study relied on a survey to gather data to explore the hypotheses and research questions. Because this study concerns young audience consumption of traditional and non-traditional news sources, students from classes made up largely of first-year students at a large Midwestern state university were recruited to participate in the survey. Firstyear students were chosen because they were most likely to have an opportunity to vote 9
for the first time in the 2006 midterm election. The students were either given extra credit or entered into a drawing for $100 as inducement to participate in the survey, which was administered via the Internet. Participants took the survey over three weeks in February 2007, and 668 valid surveys were returned. Because the study was intended to study only young audiences, participants 23 years or older (n=18) were removed from consideration, resulting in a population of 650 participants. RESULTS H1: Daily Show/Colbert Report Viewing and Political Participation H1, which predicted that consumption of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report would correspond with greater political participation, was supported. The survey asked participants about their participation and interest in political activities to create a Political Participation scale for use as a dependent variable. Because some of the responses required yes/no responses and others were on a four- or six-point Likert scale, the data was standardized. A five-item Political Participation scale (Cronbach s alpha =.65) was created, including whether the respondent whether he or she voted in the 2006 midterm election, whether he or she had campaigned for a candidate, whether he or she had aided get-out-the-vote efforts, the extent to which he or she was interested in politics, and how likely he or she was to vote in the 2008 presidential election. Participants were also asked how many times in a typical week they watched The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Because these shows usually only air Monday 10
through Thursday with repeats on Friday, people who reported typically consuming the source five or more days a week were included in one group. An Analysis of Variance test was conducted with Daily Show/Colbert Report viewing as the independent variable and the Political Participation Scale as the dependent variable. Results showed a relationship at a significant level (F=2.38, p <.05), and the means trended from lower participation scores for respondents who said they watched the show zero days a week to higher participation scores for respondents who said they watched the show five or more days a week (See Table 1). H2: Daily Show/Colbert Report Viewing and Political Trust H2, which predicted that consumption of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report would correspond with reduced political trust, was supported. The survey asked participants a number of questions about their feelings about the trustworthiness and competence of politicians on a four-point Likert scale. Questions asked participants to choose strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree to a series of statements about politicians. Because some questions were framed positively ( Politicians are ethical ) and others were framed negatively ( Politicians are crooked ), the scores of the negatively-framed items were reversed to make values directionally consistent. Responses were used to create a Political Trust scale that included ten items, with a Cronbach s alpha of.85 (See Index 1) The Political Trust scale was included as the dependent variable in an Analysis of Variance test, with Daily Show/Colbert Report viewing as the independent variable. Results showed a relationship at a significant level (F=2.83, p <.05), with mean scores 11
on the trust variable trending downward, suggesting less amount of political trust, as reported consumption of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report increased (see Table 2). RQ1: How do trust and participation differ between traditional and non-traditional news sources? The same variables used in H1 and H2 were used to explore RQ1 as well. In addition, the survey also asked how many days in a typical week participants watched, listened to or read a series of traditional news sources. Because of the low number of people who reported consuming some of the news sources more than five days a week, people who reported typically consuming the source five or more days a week were included together for three sources: morning news shows, talk radio shows, and online news. Other news sources were combined in three scales. Consumption of local evening news, network evening news and cable evening news programs were combined to make one variable, the TV News Scale (Cronbach s alpha=.67). Consumption of cable news talk shows on Fox, CNN and MSNBC were also combined to make one variable, the Cable Shows Scale (Cronbach s alpha=.74). Finally, the original values, ranging from zero days to seven days a week, of all non-satire news outlets were combined to make a broad News Consumption Scale (Cronbach s alpha=.59), with variable values divided into quartile groups. First, an Analysis of Variance test was conducted to measure the entire sample s traditional news consumption as independent variables, with the Political Participation scale as the dependent variable (See Table 3). Of the six variables, only one, 12
consumption of morning news shows, was not significantly related to political participation. Consumption of talk radio (F=9.12, p <.01), online news (F=7.11, p <.01), TV news (F=3.62, p <.01), cable news shows (F=3.85, p <.01), and the News Consumption Scale (F=19.32, p <.01) all showed significant relationships with political participation. The means revealed that the relationships were positive, suggesting that in general, the more a person consumes news, the more likely he or she is to also participate in the political system. However, this test measured only the overall sample, without accounting for any impact Daily Show and Colbert Report viewing may have on the analysis. A second Analysis of Variance test was conducted, controlling for Daily Show/Colbert Report viewing. Though the F values were slightly reduced on each of the six news consumption variables, the results were the same as the prior analysis. For all variables but morning news shows, consumption of traditional news sources had a strong, positive correlation with political participation. To consider the relationship between news consumption and political trust, another Analysis of Variance test was conducted (See Table 4). Without controlling for Daily Show/Colbert Report viewing, only two news consumption variables showed significant relationships with trust: morning news shows (F=3.00, p <.05) and the News Consumption scale (F=2.63, p <.05), with both showing positive associations. However, once Daily Show/Colbert Report viewing was included as a covariate, four of the six news consumption variables showed positive associations at significant levels: morning news shows (F=3.27, p <.01), TV newscasts (F=1.68, p <.05), cable news shows 13
(F=2.06, p <.01), and the News Consumption scale (F=3.39, p <.05). Only talk radio and online news consumption showed no relationship to trust. The results of these analyses suggest that for the participants who do not regularly watch The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, the more traditional news they consume, the more likely they are to both participate in politics and to trust politicians. DISCUSSION The results of H1 and H2 suggest that the more frequently a young person watches The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, the more likely they are to participate in politics, but the less likely they are to trust politicians. This paradox resembles The Daily Show Effect noted by Baumgartner & Morris, a phenomenon that could be modified to include political participation with political efficacy. But it appears that, at least for young audiences, both hard news and soft news correlate with higher levels of political participation; the results of this study showed a positive trend for both Daily Show/Colbert Report viewing and for more traditional news consumption. The results revealed a more crucial distinction between information-based news and entertainment-based news regarding political trust. While levels of trust generally increased as traditional news consumption increased, the opposite was true for Show/Colbert Report viewing, which showed a significant lessening of political trust among its most ardent viewers. If The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are, in fact, contributing to increased political participation, the increased political distrust more common to the viewers of this breed of political satire may be more representative of the healthy skepticism about 14
government that Schudson (1999) describes. Rather than fostering cynicism, as suggested by Baumgartner & Morris as part of The Daily Show Effect, viewers may instead be more likely to engage in political discussion and efforts at influencing change in officeholders and government policy, which are among the aspects of political participation that have sharply declined among young citizens for nearly half a century. Future studies could further refine the concept of political trust to examine its dual nature and its relationship to political participation. One limitation of this study is that it cannot be construed to suggest that viewership of political satire causes either increased political participation or lesser perceptions of political trust. Because data were collected through a cross-sectional survey, only correlations between viewership and behavior can be validly reported. Further, because the survey was of a convenience sample of college students, it may not be representative of young audiences in general, although people ages 18 to 29 with some college education were more likely to be consumers of The Daily Show than other latenight entertainment (National Annenberg Election Survey, 2004). In the future, panel or trend surveys of a broader sample of the population could be used to measure selfreported changes in attitude and behavior connected with viewership of political satire. Additionally, experiments such as the one conducted by Baumgartner & Morris could be conducted to seek effects on attitudes about political trust and intentions to engage in political activities. Considering the distressing levels of political engagement among young citizens in America, any negative impact on political trust that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report may have could be offset by increased attention to and knowledge of politics. 15
American politicians have long been a source of entertainment for the public, often unintentionally; Hirschbein (1999) proposes that one way to spark participation is to reinvigorate the entertainment aspect of politics, which he saw as comparatively sedate and dignified compared to the raucously entertaining festival of American politics in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. To better compete with the rapidly growing number of entertainment options today, Hirschbein suggests that modern politics break out of the format of the formulaic, micro-managed television commercial that encourages passive viewing rather than active participation. Political satire, particularly as offered by comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, provides an antidote to the dour mudslinging that is doled out to the public in the name of political information. Contrary to the videomalaise of the conflict frames often used in coverage of politics by traditional news outlets (Mutz & Reeves, 2005), political satire s focus on levity and the entertainment value of politics could promote a more healthy approach to political discourse. CONCLUSION Political trust and political participation, by any number of measures, has been on the decline in the United States for decades, particularly among young citizens. This study sought to examine any relationship that consumption of political satire, particularly The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, may have with political participation and political trust in young audiences. Consistent with prior research about The Daily Show, this study approached political satire as soft news, but extended research into a broad 16
concept of political participation that includes both active and passive involvement and a concept of political trust that includes both behavior and character traits of politicians. Results supported predictions that increased viewership of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report would correspond with greater levels of political participation but lower levels of political trust. When compared to viewers of more traditional news sources, such as network and cable evening news, morning news shows, talk radio and online news, an interesting distinction emerged. Consumers of these more informationbased, or hard, news sources generally showed increased, rather than decreased, levels of political trust. These findings contribute to emerging theory about how soft news operates to expose viewers to political information and may possibly impact political perceptions and behaviors. Additionally, the findings suggest that The Daily Show Effect explained by Baumgartner & Morris could be further refined to include the potential positive impact of political satire viewing on both participation and a healthy skepticism of government rather than overall feelings of distrust. The declining trend of political participation and trust in young citizens is worrisome, but viewership of entertainment-based news such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report has the potential to be the spoonful of sugar that helps the medicine go down. Political satire has long been a part of public discourse in the United States, and if increasing participation in politics is an essential goal, the benefits of soft news programming that values both entertainment and information may indeed be one way to improve participation. 17
INDEX 1 Responses to the following ten items were used to create the Political Trust scale. Respondents were asked whether they strongly disagreed, disagreed, agreed, or strongly agreed with each of the statements. Scores for negatively framed items (noted with an asterisk, *) were reversed to make them directionally consistent with the positivelyframed items. Political Trust Scale (Cronbach s alpha=.85) Politicians waste taxpayer dollars.* Politicians are in the hands of big business.* Politicians are crooked.* Politicians do what is right most of the time. Politicians favor big corporations and special interests.* Politicians do a good job with spending and the budget. Politicians are ethical. Politicians are concerned about the community s well-being. Politicians look out for my interests. Politicians are trustworthy. 18
TABLES Table 1. Analysis of Variance test comparing Daily Show/Colbert Report viewing with Political Participation. Political Mean Z Scores for Participation days viewed in a typical week F Sig. 0 1 2 3 4 5+ DailyColbert 2.38.037* -.068 -.003 -.036 -.033.001.189 * p <.05 Table 2. Analysis of Variance test comparing Daily Show/Colbert Report viewing with Political Trust. Political Mean Scores for Trust days viewed in a typical week F Sig. 0 1 2 3 4 5+ DailyColbert 2.83.015* 2.35 2.34 2.37 2.26 2.24 2.22 * p <.05 Table 3. Analysis of Variance test comparing traditional news consumption with Political Participation and Political Trust, with no control for Daily Show/Colbert Report viewing. Political Political Participation Trust F Sig F Sig Morning News Shows 1.84.104 3.00.011* Talk Radio 9.12.000** 1.21.302 Online News 7.11.000** 0.99.424 TV News Scale 3.62.000** 1.48.090 Cable Shows Scale 3.89.000** 1.62.058 News Consumption Scale 19.32.000** 2.63.049* * p <.05 ** p <.01 19
Table 4. Analysis of Variance test comparing traditional news consumption with Political Participation and Political Trust, controlling for Daily Show/Colbert Report viewing. Political Political Participation Trust F Sig F Sig Morning News Shows 1.68.136 3.27.006** Talk Radio 7.78.000** 1.64.147 Online News 6.57.000** 1.06.379 TV News Scale 3.33.000** 1.68.039* Cable Shows Scale 3.62.000** 2.06.009** News Consumption Scale 16.69.000** 3.39.018* * p <.05 ** p <.01 20
REFERENCES Baum. M.A. (2003). Soft News Goes to War: Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy in the New Media Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Baumgartner, J. & Morris, J.S. (2006). The Daily Show Effect: Candidate Evaluations, Efficacy, and American Youth. American Politics Research, 34(3), 341-367. Bowler, S. & Karp, J.A. (2004). Politicians, Scandals, and Trust in Government. Political Behavior, 26(3), 271-287. Conway, M.M. (2000). Political Participation in the United States, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Delli Carpini, M.X. & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Fox, J.R., Koloen, G. & Sahin, V. (in press). No Joke: A Comparison of Substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Broadcast Network Television Coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign. Accepted for publication in Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media. Graber, D.A. (2006). Mass Media and American Politics, 7th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Granger, B.I. (1960). Political Satire in the American Revolution. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Hibbing, J.R. & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth Democracy: Americans Beliefs About How Government Should Work. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Hirschbein, R. (1999). Voting Rites: The Devolution of American Politics. Westport, CT: Praeger. Kaplan, J.E. (2007). Emanuel tells freshmen to avoid Stephen Colbert. TheHill.com, March 15, 2007. Listhaug, O. (1995). The Dynamics of Trust in Politicians, in Klingemann, H.D. & Fuchs, D. (eds), Citizens and the State, 261-297. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Macedo, S. (2005). Democracy at Risk: How Political Choices Undermine Citizen Participation and What We Can Do About It. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. 21
Mansbridge, J. (1997). Social and Cultural Causes of Dissatisfaction With U.S. Government, in Nye, J.S., Zelikow, P.D. & King, D.C. (eds), Why The People Don t Trust Government, 133-153. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mutz, D.C. & Reeves, B. (2005). The New Videomalaise: Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 1-15. National Annenberg Election Survey (2004). Daily Show Viewers Knowledgeable About Presidential Campaign, National Annenberg Election Survey Shows. Annenburg Public Policy Center, available on-line at www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/ 2004_03_late-night-knowledge-2_9-21_pr.pdf. Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Schudson, M. (1999). The Good Citizen: A History of American Civic Life. New York, NY: The Free Press. Wagg, S. (2002). Comedy, politics and permissiveness: the satire boom and its inheritance. Contemporary Politics, 8(1), 319-334. Warren, M.E. (2006). Democracy and Deceit: Regulating Appearances of Corruption. American Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 160-174. Whitfield, S.J. (1988). Political Humor, in Mintz, L.E. (ed.), Humor in America, 195-212.. New York: Greenwood Press. 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. Press/Politics, 11(3), 113-134. 22