The Daily Show affects young voters

[IChing]

Public release date: 15-May-2006
The Daily Show affects young voters
Research reported in SAGE's American Politics Research

According to a recent study published in the May issue of SAGE Publications' journal, American Politics Research, researchers conclude that young Americans' political views are negatively impacted by watching the popular The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, which airs late night on Comedy Central as a 'fake-news program.'

Researchers Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan S. Morris, both assistant professors of political science at East Carolina University, selected The Daily Show due to its popularity among college-aged viewers. Previous research showed that over 47 percent of this age group watched the 'soft news' television program, while only 23 percent followed 'hard news' programs closely.

The study was conducted utilizing video clips from The Daily Show and CBS Evening News, a more mainstream television program that aired coverage of the 2004 presidential candidates, followed by a questionnaire. The results showed that the participants tended to rate both candidates more negatively when exposed to The Daily Show. In addition, their views of the political system as a whole were more cynical.

"If young Americans learn about candidates via Jon Stewart," the researchers conclude in the article, "it is possible that unfavorable perceptions of both parties' nominees could form, ultimately keeping more youth from the polls." These implications for political participation should be explored further.
>>>snip http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-05/sp-tds051206.php

[TheLeftyMom]

1. Cynical can be good

WTF? If you're cynical you question authority and processes. Can't be cynical and drink the Kool Aid!

[Kolesar]

5. It's called "skepticism", something the "real" media is supposed to do

...but does not. (With the exception of Olbermann Countdown and many 60-Minutes segments.)

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. No, cynicism is not good

Skepticism is much more useful than cynicism.

When dealing with politicians, to avoid falling into cynicism, I like to employ Hanlon's Razor:

Never attribute malice to what can adequately be explained by stupidity.

Please note however, that the actions of the Bush Administration have (IMHO) gone way beyond the point where they "can adequately be explained by stupidity."

[Ravenseye]

2. American Politics Research to Young Americans

"Don't question authority."

[Demeter]

3. Negatively Impacted? Says Who?

What are the criteria; where is the data? Were political views negatively impacted by Laugh-In? That show got us out of Viet Nam. That show drove Nixon from office.

If there were anything positive about today's leaders, believe me, Jon Stewart wouldn't be able to touch them. Just ask the Impeach Clinton conspirators.

[the other one]

4. Unfavorable can be accurate.

The Daily Show is popular because it is accurate. They get away with it because they make it funny.

The candidates don't suck because of the Daily Show, the Daily Show is funny because the candidates suck.

And I've seen some people really impress on the Daily Show. Wes Clark knocked 'em dead. I dislike McCain, but he comes off well. Kucinich appeared retarded, but it doesn't change my opinion of him.

[otherlander]

6. Sigh.....Where do I begin correcting this?

Let's start off with...
1. The Daily Show actually gives you more information and more honesty than a lot of news programs. We've gone through the looking glass. The joke news is serious and the serious news should make any intelligent person say, "YOU'RE JOKING, RIGHT?"

2. If watching the Daily Show makes one consider the flaws of both candidates, isn't that better than blindly accepting one of them?

3. The Daily Show doesn't make people 'cynical'....it's funny. I mean, Jon Stewart is a funny guy. If you're a well-informed person, a lot of the things going on in the world are pretty disturbing, but when you're watching the show, you have to laugh. Even if some of the things he says are a bit over the line...

[R Hickey]

7. APR - American Politic Research sounds like a bogus RW thinktank

What stupid conclusions to a stupid study, conducted by idiots.

[IChing]

8. I thought the study's conclusions were cynical and negative.

The Daily Show provides the viewer of proof that the voter needs to be cynical of their government.

[htuttle]

9. "Satire Declared Dangerous to Democracy"

Every time someone makes fun of our Dear Leader, Jesus strangles a puppy!

[durrrty libby]

10. The Daily show does a great service to the young’uns

When I think back to how freakin naïve I was in my early 20’s, it scares the crap out of me.

[Captain Hilts]

11. Didn't a survey show DS viewers were the best informed? nt

[Justice]

12. Jon Stewart hates America!

that's it.

Ever think that the political system as it exists today is the reason as a whole that young voters views are more cynical?

[boobooday]

13. This demobilization hypothesis is being debunked

Actually, the 2004 election completely debunked it. Tons of negative advertising, and a serious increase in turnout. When people think something is at stake, they mobilize and vote.

It is all part of the bigger 'civility' argument, which is a propaganda trope to shut people up. Every time Bush wants critics to shut up he calls for civility. As if, in a country that glorifies violence and competition, and loves talk shows where people throw chairs at each other and reveal their sexual indiscretions, we are too delicate to have a robust argument about politics.

Their spin is poorly informed, and based on old research. A researcher whose work is being published in the forthcoming Journal of Politics (Deborah Brooks) has revisited the original 'demobilization' research by Absolohere and Iyengar and basically, their findings just don't hold up.

[IChing]

14. I agree and thought this needed debunking

which is why I posted it.

[boobooday]

16. The DUers do an excellent job of that!

I do appreciate that you posted it.

[henslee]

26. When you cant pound the facts, pound the desk. Good post... and

you gave me a good idea for a new tv show. Dodgeball with folding chairs instead of balls.

[ixion]

15. gee, maybe if those parties weren't corrupt

people wouldn't form bad opinions of them. :evilgrin:

[Tiggeroshii]

17. Wasn't there also a survey that showed people watching Daily show

as their primary source for news are more educated than those who watch fox as their primary source? Looks like a little smear campaign against truth if you ask me...

[zann725]

18. I would hardly characterize Stewart's program as "SOFT" news!

I loved it on that famous out-take from last year's "Cross-fire" show when Stewart told Carlson and Begalla some 'Truthiness.'

When they wanted him to JUST be funny, he replied curtly: "I'm no one's 'monkey.'

Jon's show and take on the news is NOT 'soft' at all. It's 'no one's monkey'...least of all MSM.

[Kixel]

19. Well...

There are a lot of uneducated voters. My old roommate called me on election day to ask who he should vote for. A lot of voters don't make educated choices on who to vote for. They listen to their friends or their parents. The Daily Show is probably a much better source of info then a lot of people have.

[tinrobot]

20. Negatively impacted ?

A healthy dose of cynicism is a positive thing.

[Hand]

21. Hmm... Jon Stewart vs. Leslie Blitzer?

No contest! :evilgrin:

[Burma Jones]

22. Let's see....

A couple of poli sci assistant profs at East Carolina found out that folks that watch the Daily Show are a little more jaded than those that watch the MSM.

On looking into these profs, I find that Dr. Baumgartner is a RW wacko and Dr. Morris leaves no trail.....


Here was a good blog entry regarding this shite: http://poorimpulsecontrol.net/blog/2006/05/another-another-another-way.html

[Ellen Rose]

24. The Daily Show is doing a service for all those young voters.

The Daily Show is doing a service for all those young voters. Just think how many years and elections we, well some of us older voters, went through before we learned to be skeptical and cynical of those running our government. No one on TV was pointing out the ludicrous acts of our government. We had to learn to see it for ourselves. Of course the learning curve is much faster now, there are so many more insane things happening. We just had J.Edgar Hoover and Nixon to deal with. Perhaps if Jon keeps doing his funny job, the next generation of voters will actually learn how to stay informed. There seems to be a lot of voters out there who don't know reality from fiction. They are susceptible to the first thing someone says to them, (now-a-days often at church,Rush, Faux News)and never question its veracity. I just found this great quote and will share it.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right.

"Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or anyone else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about anyone else."

May 7, 1918 / Kansas City Star / Theodore Roosevelt
:patriot:

[0rganism]

25. Annenberg Election Survey -- TDS viewers were better informed on issues

Perhaps that's why our friends at SAGE/APR find them "cynical" and "negative".

Daily Show Viewers Knowledgeable About Presidential Campaign, National Annenberg Election Survey Shows(pdf)

[Spazito]

27. Hmmm, did a little digging on SAGE Publications

and found this interesting tidbit on the Editor, James G Gimpel:

snip

In Spring of 1989, having completed my coursework, I left the University of Chicago to take a job in the US Senate with the office of newly appointed Senator Daniel R. Coats (R-IN). The job in Coats' office was the most intense experience of my life, partly because he had to run two US Senate elections in the space of just four years. He survived both elections then retired from the US Senate in 1999 (his seat is now occupied by Evan Bayh). Coats was appointed US Ambassador to Germany by President George W. Bush, and served in that position from 2001 to 2005.

Although it almost killed me, I did manage to finish my dissertation while working on the Hill, taking my degree in August of 1990. With the pressures of Capitol Hill life gradually taking their toll on my mental and physical health, I decided to leave the legislative branch in 1991, taking a job in the executive branch working for Assistant Secretary John Weicher at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/gimpel/html/biography.html

I didn't know which administration Assistant Secretary John Weicher owed his allegance to so did some homework on that aspect as well and this is what I found:

From: George W Bush, Resources for the President's Team:

John Weicher -- Department of Housing and Urban Development
Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Federal Housing Commissioner)

Most recently, John Weicher was a Senior Fellow and Director of Urban Studies at the Hudson Institute. Previously, he served as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research at HUD from 1989 to 1993. He was Associate Director of Economic Policy at the Office of Management and Budget from 1987 to 1989 and was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Affairs at HUD from 1975 to 1977. John is a graduate of the University of Michigan and received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/results/leadership/bio_451.html

Gosh, I am no longer wondering why "researchers conclude that young Americans' political views are negatively impacted by watching the popular The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, which airs late night on Comedy Central as a 'fake-news program.'"

[IChing]

30. Great research, good work

I had no doubt on where this was coming from.

"you gotta catapult the propaganda" thanks for helping debunk this crap.

[Spazito]

33. Thanks, their conclusions did smell more than a little for sure

and where there is a smell one often finds the crap behind it fairly close by, lol.

[progressivebydesign]

28. "NEGATIVELY IMPACTED"????? WTF???

If you don't agree with Bush, it's negative? It's total bullshit. Daily Show exposes the horrific political abuses by the republicans, and occasionally a few dunderheaded Dems. That is the dumbest study I've ever seen.

[CAcyclist]

29. Hmm, I wondered when the attacks would begin

After all, they tried ignoring the Daily Show. That didn't work. Then they tried dismissing the Daily Show and the Colbert Report and patronizing their viewers. Jon Stewart "bombed" at the Academy Awards and Steve Colbert was "not funny" at the Correspondent's Dinner. Right.

I guess that means we've won!

[CAcyclist]

31. Man, isn't my avatar pretty?nt

[susanna]

32. And "network" news is considered a positive impact?

LOL. Stop, my sides. No, really.

Have the authors of this study considered the concept that young people see through the network news and its insular cronyism? Nah. Can't be that. Jon Stewart is just "funny."

To use the catchphrase of my relatively impotent generation: "Whatever."

On edit: Jon is not a steward.

[rocktivity]

34. They should be more concerned with WHY

young people are turning away from "traditional" news. It would make them look a little less partisan. By the way, what's WRONG with having a negative perception of a politician who DESERVES it?

:eyes:
rocknation

[susanna]

35. My point exactly. n/t