Absolute Final for El-nawawy

Running Head: FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING 1

Framing Analysis along with Agenda Setting: Effects of Satirical Talks Shows on Viewers’

Perceptions of a Politician

Anna Kirwan, Valerie Hatcher & Diandra Tretiu

Queens University of Charlotte

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING 2

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to see how framing of a politician or a political issue on a satirical

talk show affects viewer’s perceptions. The researchers wanted to see if there is a correlation

between the uses of comedy and increase of the popularity of political issues along with seeing if

college students prefer to watch satirical talk shows (i.e. The Daily Show, The Colbert Report

and Saturday Night Live (SNL)) as opposed to hard news (i.e. CNN or Fox News). In order to

gather information for the study, the researchers asked college participants a series of questions

to inform the researchers how often students remember hearing about important political issues

on a satirical talk show, and whether or not they feel more informed about those issues after

watching them. The researchers found that the college participants prefer to watch satirical talk

shows as opposed to hard news and discovered that they feel more informed after watching them.

These findings support Hypothesis 1 and 2 and answer Research question 1.

Key Words: Framing, Agenda Setting, Satirical Talk Shows


Framing Analysis along with Agenda Setting: Effects of Satirical Talks Shows

On Viewers’ Perceptions of a Politician

Introduction

Political figures occupy a very public domain and retain a certain authority and

responsibility. Their public persona and actions are frequently framed using satirical talk shows

as a platform to present them in positive and negative ways. According to Harold Lasswell

(1948) (as cited in Graber, 1993), the media performs three major functions: (1) Surveillance of

the world to report ongoing events, (2) Interpretation on the meaning of events, and (3)

socialization of individuals into their cultural settings. Graber (1993) states that in addition to the

previous three, a fourth function should be included: deliberate manipulation of politics. In order

to influence the public, satirical talk shows use several forms of manipulation: framing, agenda

setting, and priming as an extension of agenda setting. The concept of ‘priming’ demonstrates

how media attention to an issue can affect public opinion (Meeds, Al- Emadi, & Diop, 2013).

According to Schuefele (2000) (as cited in Meeds, et al., 2013) “where agenda-setting and

priming deal with issue accessibility, framing deals with applicability—or how the issues are

interpreted by both the news media and their audiences” (Meads, et al., 2013,p. 4). In

Bagdikian’s (1997) assertion (as cited in Dahmen, 2010, p. 115) the media are ‘‘the authority at

any given moment for what is true and what is false, what is reality and what is fantasy.”

Research has shown that news coverage can focus public attention on particular topics and in


doing so, alter the mix of cognitions that are most readily accessible when forming political

judgment (Shah, Watts, Domke & Fran, 2002).

Satirical talk shows have also joined the cause when it comes to issues of politics. This

has caused politicians to focus more on exemplifying likable characteristics rather than reporting

on important political issues. According to Schutz (1997), most viewers will base their opinions

on a politician in accordance with what they hear or see on talk shows. The attempt to measure

the impact of satirical talk shows has led to an extensive body of research, allowing scholars to

better categorize and explain the processes responsible for these effects (Esralew & Young,

2012). The purpose of this study was to see how framing of politicians or a political issue on a

satirical talk show affects viewer’s perceptions. The researchers also wanted see if there is a

correlation between the use of comedy and increase of political issues. In addition, the

researchers wanted to find whether college students prefer to watch satirical talk shows (i.e. The

Daily Show, The Colbert Report and SNL) as opposed to hard news (i.e. CNN or Fox News). In

order to gather information for the study, the researchers asked college participants a series of

questions to inform the researchers on how often students remember hearing about important

political issues on a satirical talk show, and whether or not they felt more informed about those

issues after watching them.

Theory

Framing or Framing Analysis Theory: Since the late 1960s, framing analysis developed

by Erving Goffman, (1974) (as cited in Kent & Davis, 2006) and has helped researchers develop

an understanding on how media influences public perceptions of the social world. Goffman was

fascinated by the way that meaning is created and negotiated within the context of everyday life

(Kent & Davis, 2006). In 1974, he published Frame Analysis; in his book, Goffman (1974)


discusses how frames are learned and applied and how they guide our senses (as cited in Kent &

Davis, 2006).

Framing Analysis Theory: argues that the expectations we form about other people, our

social world, and ourselves are one of the basic elements in social life. Our expectations are

based on previous experience of some kind, whether derived from a media message or direct

personal experience; meaning we are not born with them (Theories of Communication, 2013).

“Framing,” as defined by Gamson (1992) in (Meeds, et al., 2013) is a “storyline” that sets the

scene for a particular issue to be interpreted in more than one way. In addition, framing affects

the way people form judgments, recognize problems and identify solutions (Meeds, et al., 2013).

According to Scheufele (1999), the word framing has been used in many different ways to label

similar but different approaches to applicable concepts; he claims framing is more of a metaphor

that can be distinctly translated into research questions. Framing Analysis was built on the idea

that in order to frame a message in a given way, it is required that it contain certain associations

rather than others. This idea can be applied to message content as well as distinct level effects on

opinions and thoughts (Kernochan, 2004).

According to Entman (1993) when analyzing news media coverage, text and visuals that

constitute a frame, can be distinguished by their capacity to stimulate support on opposite sides

in a political conflict (as cited in Dahmen, 2010 p. 117). In addition, he states that ‘‘the sine qua

non of successful framing is magnitude magnifying those elements of the depicted reality that

favor one side’s position, making them salient, while at the same time shrinking those elements

that might be used to construct a counter frame’’(Dahmen, 2010, p. 117) .

Frames allow a person to identify and understand events, giving meaning to the ongoing

activities of life; therefore, frameworks are the models we use to understand our experiences and


the way we see things coming together as some coherent whole (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011). Since

framing is used more to identify subtle but various concepts, studies have operationalized

framing in combination with other concepts such as agenda setting or priming (Scheufele, 1999).

Agenda setting has many uses in our society; it gives the media power to launch what

news we see and hear (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011). The intellectual father of agenda setting was

Walter Lippmann, who began his classic book, Public Opinion, with a chapter titled “The World

Outside and the Pictures in Our Heads.” In his book, Lippman discusses three levels of agenda

(as cited in Guo, Vu & McCombs, 2012, p.54). In terms of his phrase “the pictures in our heads,”

“the first level of agenda-setting effects answers the question: What are the pictures about? The

second level of agenda setting answers the question: What are the dominant characteristics and

the third level actually comes closer to answering, what are the pictures inside our head”

(as cited in Guo et al., 2012, p 54). The pictures therefore are our attitudes towards an object:

The word object is used in social psychology to refer to the “thing” that a person holds an

opinion about (Guo et al., 2012). According to Littlejohn and Foss (2011), the idea of issue

salience as a media effect is intriguing and important. Therefore, agenda setting has been used

for many purposes to establish media agenda and to retrieve public opinion (Littlejohn & Foss,

2011).

Literature Review

Studies

Since the invention of the printing press, people have wondered about the influences

mass media may have on the audience (Bryant & Thompson, 2002). In recent years, several new

trends have emerged in political communication and several dynamics affect political

communication in society: the social scene, the political landscape, the media environment and


the media content (Bryant & Thompson, 2002). The introduction of new technologies has

affected the ways in which Media is presented. It changes frequently causing fluctuations in

public opinion and other changes at the societal level (Bryant & Thompson, 2002).

Research shows that media coverage can cause the public to focus their attention on

particular topics and peoples’ opinions are substantially shaped by frames and cues provided by

news media (Shah et al., 2002). In 2008, research was conducted to see how the media covered

presidential candidates. They found not only were traditional media outlets covering candidates,

but also that they were being covered by a new form of “infotainment” (Gilkerson, 2010). The

researchers discovered politicians, especially presidential candidates, were appearing more

frequently on satirical talk shows (Gilkerson, 2010). This is could be considered risky since

these messages are not controlled and because politicians are the focus of countless nightly

monologues jokes and satirical sketches on satirical talk shows like The Tonight Show and The

Late Show (Gilkerson, 2010). The intent of this study was to examine how the frames were used

to portray Democratic Party Presidential candidates Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton, and

Republican Party Presidential candidate John McCain.

In this study, the following questions were addressed in RQ1 thru RQ 4: What are the

most common frames used by jokes told on satirical talk shows about each presidential

candidate? Is there a difference between how male and female candidates are framed by late

night comedians? How were other factors such as age or race, commonly used in humorous

framing of the candidates? What social assumptions did these frames expose? How are

candidates framed when they are portrayed by actors, compared to when they themselves

appeared on SNL Skits and was the framing different from the frames used in monologue- style

jokes? (Gilkerson, 2010) In order to test the theories the researchers conducted an extensive


multi-year content analysis of over 13,000 jokes delivered on several popular late-night

entertainment programs (Gilkerson, 2010). Their research revealed that candidate appearance on

entertainment-oriented programing could positively influence citizen’s evaluation of candidates:

content analysis showed that interview questions on partisan are rarely critical and generate

positive images of candidates in the minds of viewers (Gilkerson, 2010). Their findings also

reveal that frames, when used in late- night humor, are simplistic representations and that comic

frames of politicians lack any significant nuance while often conveying bias and

misrepresentation. In addition, they suggest more research in this area should be continued since

humor is reliant upon individual interpretation.

A study conducted by Becker, Xenos, and Waisanen (2010), investigated satirical talk

shows - one of the newest forms of reporting on politicians and political platforms. Research

shows there is large audience of younger viewers focused on satirical talk shows for political

updates (Becker, Xenos &Waisanen, 2010). They also state that some prefer soft news, to more

traditional hard news content, simply because the genre is more appealing and entertaining

(Becker et al., 2010).

A research study was conducted to provide valuable insights about the role of political

humor in influencing political behavior by first focusing on the pressing issue of how such

content is perceived by audiences (Becker et al., 2010). Information was gathered from an

interactive experiment conducted at a major Midwestern university, where a total of 332

undergraduate students participated in the study (Becker et al., 2010). A factorial design was

used to allow for a separate examination of stimulus effects by condition (Becker et al., 2010). In

order to conduct the study they had four groups of participants. Three of the groups watched one

of the following five-minute clips: (1) hard news only, (2) comedy only, (3) a mixed clip of both


hard news and comedy and the fourth group was a control group that were not shown any of the

clips (Becker et al., 2010). Hard news is associated with informative news channels such as CNN

or FOX News, intended to portray the facts (Hoffman & Young, 2011). The results of their

research underscored the need to include audience perceptions of these programs in the growing

field of direct effects research. Overall, their findings suggest that viewers draw a measurable

and pronounced dividing line between political comedy programs and hard news content (Becker

et al., 2010).

A different driver of public opinion occurs when those in power and those in the

opposition move public opinion by providing and filtering information to news outlets to steer

public opinion. Over the past three election cycles, the landscape of political communication and

public-affairs television has continuously grown more complicated (Bayam, 2013). Bayam

(2013) states that politicians have wider televisual resources at their disposal to make arguments,

influence opinions, and build constituencies. Contemporary citizens, in their efforts to engage

with and perhaps find pleasure in the political domain, are drawing on any number of programs

and generic configurations that crisscross categories of news, entertainment, and politics

(Bayam, 2013) an example would be The Daily Show. The Daily Show was analyzed, from early

2005 to 2007 with 52 episodes included in the study. Within these 52 episodes, 222 news stories

were covered and analyzed; more than half of these stories referenced political topics and a

fourth did so using issue framing. “The Daily Show mocks the substance and form of traditional

television news programs,” (Brewer & Marquardt, 2007, p. 249). As mentioned by Becker et al.,

(2010) by doing so, they attract younger audiences. Between 2001 and 2005, its audience

doubled to 1.3 million viewers a night, out of which two thirds of the viewers were between the

ages of 18 and 49. These types of satirical talk shows are referred to as “soft news” media and


have been shown to have the potential to educate viewers about politicians and political issues

while encouraging them to think critically or cynically in some cases, about traditional news

(Brewer & Marquardt, 2007). Out of The Daily Show’s 1.3 million viewers a night, one fourth

said that they “regularly” or “sometimes” learned about presidential campaigns from comedy

shows such as The Daily Show and SNL (Brewer & Marquardt, 2007). This has led to the way

the audience perceives the politicians since they are viewing a very satirical point of view on the

issue and it may be their only source of information (Brewer & Marquardt, 2007).

These programs have at least the potential to inform viewers about political figures

beyond the presidents and vice presidents, and the potential to inform viewers about public

policy debate since it frequently frames politics in terms of issues (Brewer & Marquardt, 2007).

The Daily Show in particular, focused on issue framing, and researchers have found that The

Daily Shows’ viewers were more knowledgeable about politics than were non-viewers. “The

media aren’t very successful in telling us what to think, but they are stunningly successful in

telling us what to think about” (Griffin, 2011, p. 389). Framing one issue in particular sets the

stage for what the viewers should be thinking about, and these satirical talk shows (that already

hold a large viewing audience) frame what political issues and figures the audience is thinking.

The direct impact that satirical talk shows can have on a politician was shown in the 2008

presidential campaign, when Tina Fey did a precise portrayal of Sarah Palin on SNL giving Palin

caricature like attributes, which went viral on both television and online (Ersalew & Young,

2010). During the 10-week period of Palin’s campaign, a total of six parodies aired on SNL in

which Fey impersonated Palin, consistently packaging the governor as unintelligent,

inexperienced, ultra-conservative, and rural. The impact of entertainment-based television has

led to an extensive area of research, allowing scholars to better recognize and clarify the


processes responsible for these effects. In the context of news programing agenda setting,

framing and priming were originally thought to be exclusive context of informative

programming. These forms of traditional political information have provided one framework

through which scholars have examined political entertainment effects (Ersalew & Young, 2012).

Therefore, the researchers of this study hypothesized the following H1: The salience of

constructs related to Palin’s intelligence, competence, and experience (ICE) will be stronger after

exposure to Fey’s impersonation on SNL. To test H1, they ran paired-samples T-test to compare

the ICE scores between the pre- test and the posttests among participants in the SNL condition

(Ersalew & Young, 2012). H2: The salience of constructs related to Palin’s rural background will

be stronger after exposure to Fey’s impersonation on SNL (Ersalew & Young, 2012). They also

ran a T-test to measure for this hypothesis as well (Ersalew & Young, 2012). H3: Looking at the

SNL condition, the salience of SNL-related items will be stronger after exposure to Fey’s

impersonation on SNL (Ersalew & Young, 2012). To test H3, they ran paired-samples T-test to

compare the SNL indexes between the pre- and posttests among participants in the SNL

condition (Ersalew & Young, 2012). In the study, researchers explored how caricatures might

help viewers fill out perceptions of an unknown candidate, even though the controlled

experiment could not definitively identify how Fey’s impersonations affected people’s opinions

of Palin during the actual campaign itself (Ersalew & Young, 2012). In addition, the study

showed significant effects months after this caricature had become a part of the political

landscape. The results in a controlled study also suggested that the actual impact of these effects

might have been even stronger during the election (Ersalew & Young, 2012). This also lends

credence to the results that satirical talk shows use comedy to increase the popularity of

important political issues.


Hoffman & Young (2011) state that recent research has demonstrated that these satirical

talk shows have effects on normatively positive political outcomes like participation. Therefore,

not only is the popularity of important political issues increasing, but political participation by

every day citizens is increasing as well, according to researchers. While this effect seems like a

positive outcome, scholars do not always agree about the harmful versus beneficial impact of

political entertainment (Hoffman & Young, 2011) they simply agree on the increase in

popularity of political issues and political participation. Political television has a prominent

effect on the viewer’s understanding of politicians and the political situations that those

politicians find themselves.

A study conducted by Hoffman & Young (2011) proved that political information

portrayed through different types of satirical talk shows affect the public in different ways.

Viewers often make a distinction between hard news and soft news only. They group hard news

in with informative news channels such as CNN or FOX News. Hard News channels intend to

portray the facts and give a story without any additional theatrical elements. The other common

news category is “soft news” which consists of late night comedy skits, and political satire. What

most viewers do not understand is that certain forms of soft news do not have as much political

efficacy as other sources of soft news. “Efficacy will be a mediating mechanism between

viewing (H1) political satire or parody and political participation, (H2) traditional television

news and political participation, and (H3) late night comedy and political participation”

(Hoffman & Young 2011, p. 162). Hoffman & Young (2011) performed a political experiment

that forms a correlation between the types of news people are exposed to and their political

efficacy. Political efficacy is “the belief in one’s own competency and the feeling that political

and social change is possible” (Hoffman & Young, 2011, p. 161). The researchers used a 5- point


likert scale to gather data over series of questions answered by their participants. The questions

determined how often the participants watched news, what kind of news they watched (hard or

soft) and how does the news consumed affect their political efficacy. The results suggested,

“consuming satire or parody and traditional hard news affect political participation, at least in

part through political efficacy” (Hoffman & Young, 2011, p. 164).

A study conducted by Lauren Feldman and Dannagal Goldthwaite Young examined the

effects that viewing The Late Show, The Tonight Show, and The Daily show have on the level of

attention paid to traditional news when information on presidential campaigns are aired. The

researchers’ hypotheses were “(H1) Viewers of The Tonight Show or The Late Show with will

pay more attention to the campaign on television news than those who do not watch satirical talk

shows. (H2) Viewers of The Daily Show will pay more attention to the campaign on satirical talk

show than those who do not watch late-night comedy. (H1) Over time, the rate of increase in

attention to the campaign on hard news will be greater for viewers of The Tonight Show or The

Late Show than those who do not watch satirical talk shows. (H2) Over time, the rate of increase

in attention to the campaign on hard news will be greater for viewers of The Daily Show than

those who do not watch satirical talk shows” (Feldman & Young, 2008, p. 407). In order to

conduct the research the researchers did a series of telephone interviews. The researchers sample

was conducted from a random sample of phone numbers gathered from The National Annenberg

Election Survey (NAES). “The logic of the NAES rolling cross-sectional design ensures that on

a given night, the sample of numbers interviewed will be comparable to the sample interviewed

on any other night” (Feldman and Young, 2008, p. 407). The questions asked during the phone,

interviews were used to determine how much late night television the participants watched and if

they believe that their viewing has any effect on the way they view hard news sources. “The


results of this study demonstrates that exposure to satirical talk shows is associated with higher

levels of attention to the presidential campaign than traditional hard news” (Feldman & Young,

2008, p. 416). This coincides with the agenda setting theory because the amounts of people that

watch satirical talk shows also watch hard news sources. They are receiving information about a

presidential campaign from both news sources. The results of the research prove that “viewers

of The Daily Show and of The Late Night Show and The Late Show are more inclined than non-

late-night viewers to pay attention to hard news at the outset of the primary campaign” (Feldman

and Young, 2008, p.416). Therefore, the results supported the researchers’ hypotheses that

satirical talk shows affect viewers’ perceptions and the use of comedy increase popularity of

political issues.

Hypotheses

H1: There is a correlation between satirical talk shows’ framing of a politician, and the

way the audience perceives the politician.

The independent variable for hypothesis one is the “framing” of a politician on satirical talk

shows. The dependent variable is the viewer’s perceptions of a politician. The conceptual

definition of framing is that satirical talk shows can portray politicians in a comical way and help

shape a viewer’s perception of them. Research shows that framing consist of media effects,

agenda setting and priming which are explored in the context of news programming and other

forms of traditional political information through which scholars have examined political

entertainment effect (Ersalew & Young, 2012) . The operational definition of “framing” in this

study is to measure the effects of satirical talk shows impact on views perceptions of politician.

The framing of political issues involving President Obama will be measured by measuring recall.

Researchers will measure recall by asking “Participants to recall if they have heard about


different political issues pertaining to the President, Obamacare or the fiscal shutdown of

Government on satirical talk shows”. Researchers will measure responses by using a likert scale

of 1 to 5 with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree. The conceptual definition of

viewers’ perceptions is shown in news coverage and how it can focus public attention on

particular topics and in doing so, alter the mix of cognitions that are most readily accessible

when forming political judgment (Shah, Watts, Domke & Fran, 2002). The operational definition

of a viewers’ perception, and the way researchers will measure viewers’ perception is by asking

questions such as “On a scale of 1-5 Watching satirical talk show has changed my view of the

President or Obamacare,” the respondent will choose 1-5; 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being

strongly agree.

H2: “There is a correlation between the uses of comedy and the increase of interest in

political issues”

The Independent variable is the use of comedy. The dependent variable is increased interest of

political issues. The conceptual definition of the use of comedy in satirical talk shows is seen in

Tina Fey’s impersonation of Sara Palin on Saturday Night Live (Ersalew & Young, 2010). The

operational definition of the use of comedy will be measured by asking questions such as “I find

that the political issues/politicians are discussed in a humorous way on satirical talk shows (such

as the Daily Show, The Colbert Report) and the respondent will choose 1-5 1 being strongly

disagree and 5 being strongly agree. The conceptual definition of the increase in interest of

political issues is shown in previous research that has demonstrated that satirical talk shows have

effects on normatively positive political outcomes like participation (Hoffman & Young 2011).

The operational definition of the increase in interest of political issues will be measured by

asking question such as “watching satirical talk shows have increased my level of interest on a


politician or political issue.” The respondent will then choose 1-5; 1 being strongly disagree and

5 being strongly agree.

RQ1: Do viewers prefer to hear soft news (i.e. The Daily Show, Colbert Report, or SNL)

concerning political issues on satirical talk shows to hard news (i.e. CNN or Fox News)?

The independent Variable is hard news or soft news. The dependent variable is “viewers’

preference.” The conceptual definition of Hard News or Soft News, according to Hoffman &

Young, (2011) viewers often make a distinction between hard news and soft news only. They

group hard news in with informative news channels such as CNN or FOX News. Hard News

channels intend to portray the facts and give a story without any additional theatrical elements.

The other common news category is “soft news” which consists of late night comedy skits, and

political satire. The operational definition for hard news and soft news were measured by

explicitly stating in the survey that CNN and Fox are categorized as hard news then asking the

surveyors to mark their preference for hard news on scale of 1-5 with 1 being strongly disagree

and 5 being strongly agree. The conceptual definitions of “viewer’s preference of political news”

the way in which a viewer wishes to gain information on political topics. A 2004 Research

survey showed that 25% of all Americans say they learn about politics from satirical talk shows

(Gilkerson, 2010). The operational definition of “viewers preference” will be measured by the

researchers listing the satirical talk shows and asking the viewers on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1

being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree, to rate their preference by answering

questions like “I prefer to watch CNN News for all my political updates” or “I prefer to watch

The Daily Show for all my political updates.

Methodology

In order to test the two hypothesis and research question for this study, the researchers


administered a face-to-face survey using a non- probability sample. The survey was administered

to a non-random selection of 100 Queens University of Charlotte students. The survey is

considered a purposive sample since a volunteer based selection of undergraduate students was

used. Survey subjects were required to read and sign a consent form stating their willingness to

participate in the survey prior to completing the questionnaire. Researchers used a non-

probability sample due to the limitations of gathering data to support the research.

The advantage of using a non-probability sample is that it is convenient, cost effective,

and less time consuming. The disadvantage of using a non-probability sample is that we are not

using a random sample therefore, not every member of the population has an equal chance of

being selected, which may cause limited feedback.

Researchers conducted a face-to-face study survey which required the researchers to be

present while administering the survey as well as when the survey was being taken which

allowed room for any questions to be answered by the researchers. Before the process took place,

the participants signed a consent form that stated they were willing participants and that they

were able to quit their participation in the survey at any time. The consent form also informed

participants of the study and what variables the researchers will measure. Once the information

was completed and the surveys had been collected, the researchers were able to measure each

variable using a 5- point Likert scale to examine the participant’s responses. The data was then

entered into SPSS where a paired sample t-test provided results on independent and dependent

variables.

Pilot Study

The researchers conducted a pilot study prior to distributing the final questionnaires’ in

order to increase the likelihood of success in the main study. After gathering the data from the


pilot study and asking the surveyors questions about the survey, researchers were able to make

adjustments to the questionnaire that the subjects found confusing as well as giving the

researchers insight on how to qualify the participants before administering the final survey. For

the pilot study, the researchers surveyed six people in a face-to-face survey. The questionnaires

were handed out to the surveyors and the researchers stayed close by in order to answer any

questions the subjects had pertaining to the survey.

The pilot study was helpful to the researchers; the subjects informed the researchers that

they needed further explanation on what a satirical talk show is. This was evident when

researchers picked up the surveys and reviewed the answers with the participants. A few of the

subjects answered no, they had never heard about certain issues regarding a satirical talk show;

then they answered that they had frequently heard about those issues on The Daily Show, The

Colbert Report and SNL. One of the other surveyors marked yes they had heard about the issues

and then marked that they did not remember hearing about any of the issues on The Daily Show,

The Colbert Report and SNL. This helped the researchers explain the purpose of the survey,

qualify the surveyors, and explain what satirical talk shows are before handing out the final

survey.

Findings

The results of the research revealed the following for Hypothesis 1: There is a statistical

significant difference using a paired sample t-test on SPSS between independent variables and

dependent variables: hearing about Obamacare on a satirical talk show (i.e. The Daily Show,

Colbert Report, & SNL) and watching satirical talk shows has changed my view of Obamacare.

The mean for 100 students who had heard about Obamacare on The Daily Show is (M= 3.04,

SD=1.22). The mean for 100 students who feel a satirical talk show changed their view of


Obamacare was (M= 2.65, SD=1.02) conditions; (t) =2.67, p=.009. The mean for those who

heard about Obamacare on The Colbert Report was (M= 3.01, SD=1.22). The mean for those

whose view about Obamacare changed after a satirical talk show was (M= 2.65, SD=1.03)

conditions; (t) =2.43, p= .017. The mean for students who heard about Obamacare on SNL was

(M= 3.25, SD=1.33). The mean of students whose view about Obamacare changed after a

satirical talk show was (M= 2.65, SD=1.03) conditions; (t) = 3.72, p=.000.

The results of the research revealed for Hypothesis 2. There is a statistical significant

difference using a paired sample t-test on SPSS between independent variables and dependent

variables: satirical talk shows are entertaining and informative and satirical talk show gives

correct and accurate information on political issues. The mean for 100 who feel satirical talk

shows are informative (M=3.64, SD=.916). The mean for 100 students who feel satirical talk

shows give correct and accurate information (M=3.07, SD= .913) conditions; (t) = 4.96, p= .000.

The results of the research revealed for Research Question 1. There is a statistical

significant difference using a paired sample t-test on SPSS between independent variables and

dependent variables: I prefer to watch CNN for Political Updates and I prefer to watch satirical

talk shows for political updates. The mean for 100 students who prefer to watch CNN (M=2.71,

SD= 1.09). The mean for 100 students who prefer to watch satirical talk show (M=3.13, SD

= .929) conditions; (t) = -2.91, p= .004.

Discussion

In these last few months, there has been a profuse amount of critical news coverage

surrounding President Barak Obama and the Obamacare Act. This study investigated the

connections between framing analysis, agenda setting, and priming used by satirical talk shows.

The researchers explored how these types of shows contend for resonance with members of the


public by organizing complex news topics around satire and cynicism. Public figures are

regularly broadcasted on satirical talk shows in a humorous or satirical way. These shows make

light of the speeches politicians deliver or the agendas they set. If a political figure delivers a

speech poorly, the media will present it so the viewers can see their imperfections in a comedic

or satirical way.

The researchers of this study conducted a survey to measure the effects of satirical-

framing and agenda setting on politicians. The researchers asked 100 Queens University of

Charlotte students a series of questions, asking them to elaborate on which satirical talk shows

they watch, and how often those talk shows address important government issues. Upon

gathering the information and compiling the data, researchers revealed that the students of

Queens University prefer satirical talk shows as opposed to hard news. Researchers also found

that the students feel more informed after watching satirical talk shows. This is interesting

because the issues addressed on satirical talk shows are not always pertinent to what is

happening in the government. Satirical talk show producers watch several different forms of hard

news sources and then choose the clips and subjects for their show. The producers of satirical

talk shows are looking for content that can be easily turned into good political satire, not for the

most important issues discussed in the news.

Limitations

The researchers would have preferred to have asked more questions measuring

perceptions of a political figure as opposed to what surveyors had heard on satirical talk shows.

One area that would have provided a different insight into the results would have been asking the

students surveyed what year they were in so measurements could have been taken whether or not

juniors and seniors shared the same sentiments as freshman and sophomores when it comes to


news preferences. In addition to adding more demographical questions, the researchers felt they

would have had a better understanding on what satirical shows had the most impact on their

political views if they had separated the shows in to categories. For instance, The Daily Show and

The Colbert Report could have been in one category and Saturday Night Live could have been in

a different category.

Recommendations

The researchers offer the following recommendations to other researchers who may be

interested in this field of study: More demographical type questions included in the survey may

help to gain insight on why young adults prefer satirical talk shows for political updates as

oppose to hard news like CNN or Fox. It may be insightful if more questions were asked

regarding perceptions (i.e. Do you like this politician? How do you feel about certain issues this

politician is trying to pass?).

Conclusion

Since the younger population has become more interested in satirical talk show than the

traditional hard new for their political updates, politics could go in an interesting and

unpredictable direction in the future. This may be worth investigating particularly because

satirical talk shows seem to have a significant impact on the way young adults view political

issues and politicians. Future investigation and research may also be helpful for those

considering a run for political positions in the future.


References

Bayam, G. (2013). Political Media as Discursive Modes: A Comparative Analysis of Interviews

With Ron Paul from Meet the Press, Tonight, The Daily Show, and Hannity.

International Journal of Communication, Vol. 7, 489-507

Becker, A., B., Xenos, M., A., & Waisanen, D., J. (2010). Sizing up the Daily Show: Audience

Perceptions of Political Comedy Programing, Atlantic Journal of Communication, Vol.

18, 144-157

Brewer, P., Marquardt, E. (2007). Mock News and Democracy: Analyzing the Daily Show,

Atlantic Journal of Communication, Vol. 15(4), 249-267

Dahmen, N.S. (2010). Construction of the Truth and Destruction of a Million little Pieces.

Communication of Journalism Studies, 11(1), 115-130.

Ersalew, S. & Young, D. G. (2012). The Influence of Parodies on Mental Models: Exploring the

Tina Fey Sarah Palin Phenomenon. Communication Quarterly, 60(3), 338-352

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

Gilkerson, N. (2010). Presidential Candidate Framing and Participation in Late-Night Comedy:

The political Punditry of Television Humor Writers. Conference Papers—International

Communication Association, p. 1-30

Graber, D.A., (1993) Mass Media and American Politics 4th edition, Washington, D.C

Congressional Quarterly Inc.

Griffin, Em. (2011). A first look at communication. (8th Edition). Boston, MA. McGraw-Hill

Companies Inc.


Guo, L., Vu, H. T. & McCombs, M. (2012). An Expanded Perspective on Agenda-Setting

Effects. Exploring the third level of agenda setting. Communication & Mass Media

Complete, 11(1), 51-68

Hoffman, L.H., & Young, D.G. (2011). Satire, Punch Lines, and the Nightly News: Untangling

Media Effects on Political Participation. Communication Research Reports, 28(2),

159-168

Kernochan, R. (2004). Framing and Framing Theory. Sept 9, 2013. Retrieved from:

http://www.csun.edu/~rk33883/Framing%20Theory%20Lecture%20Ubertopic.htm

Kent, K. & Davis, D. (2006) Framing Theory and Research: Implications for the Practice of

Journalism. International Communication Association. Annual Meeting, p. 1-27, 27p.

Littlejohn, S.W., Ross, K. A. (2011). Theories of Human Communication 10th edition.

Long Grove: Waveland Press, Inc.

Meeds, R., Al-Emadi, D. A., & Diop, A. (2013). Trusted News Sources’ Measures and their

Relationships to Social and Public Attitudes: An Analysis of the First Annual Omnibus

Survey of Life in Qatar. Journal of Middle East Media, 9(1), p. 1-23

Scheufele, D. (1999). Framing as a Theory of Media Effects. International Communication

Association, 49(1),103-118

Shah, D.V., Watts, M.D., Domke, D., & Fan, D.P. (2002). News Faming and Cuing of Issue

Regimes Explaining Clinton’s Public Approval in Spite of Sandal. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 66(3), 339-37.

Schutz, A. (1997). Self-presentational Tactic of Talk-Show Guest: A Comparison of politicians,

Experts, and entertainers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(21), 1941-1952

http://www.csun.edu/~rk33883/Framing%20Theory%20Lecture%20Ubertopic.htm


Theories of Communication. Zeepedia. Sept.09, 2013. Retrieved from.

http://www.zeepedia.com/read.php?

framing_spiral_of_silence_spiral_of_silence_assessing_public_opinion_theories_of_com

munication&b=81&c=34

Wimmer, R.D. & Dominick, J.R. (2011). Mass Media Research an Introduction

9th Edition. Boston, MA, Wadsworth, Cengage Learning

http://www.zeepedia.com/read.php?framing_spiral_of_silence_spiral_of_silence_assessing_public_opinion_theories_of_communication&b=81&c=34



Absolute Final for El-nawawy

Documents

Transcript of Absolute Final for El-nawawy