The Center for Media and Public Affairs, the long-time shingle of academic media-bias expert Robert Lichter (have you ever read "The Media Elite"?), has a new study out on just how negative "The Daily Show" was in the week leading up to Election Day 2006. CMPA, also the former home of MRC research guru Rich Noyes, has long specialized in studying the political tilt of TV jokes as well as TV news. This study suggests that if negativity is a problem in our political culture, then Jon Stewart ain’t the solution:
Comedy Central’s highly-rated "Daily Show" program covered the 2006 mid-terms with a nearly unanimous negative tone, according to a new study released by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). While the show bills itself as ‘fake news,’ their reporting prior to the election was 97% negative – far more unfavorable than network news coverage of the Mark Foley scandal, and even of Saddam Hussein – though equally harsh towards Republicans and Democrats.
The major findings were:
Nary Is Heard a Favorable Word: In its pre-election coverage, "Daily Show" correspondents evaluated candidates and policies negatively 97 percent of the time. When compared to traditional broadcast network news coverage over the years, this is more negative than the coverage of the GOP during the Mark Foley scandal (88% negative) and Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War (88% negative).
GOP vs. Dems, Flotsam Versus Jetsam? If not necessarily fair, the "Daily Show" was balanced in its depiction of the two political parties. 98% of the evaluations of Republicans prior to the election were negative, while 96% of the ‘reporting’ on Democrats was negative.
Top Targets: The politician who was most frequently mocked during the run-up to the election wasn’t a GOP lawmaker, but former Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry. The top four targets of "Daily Show" abuse were Kerry, President George W. Bush, GOP Congressman Don Sherwood (accused of strangling his mistress) and Senator Mike DeWine. The number one political issue satirized was the use of electronic voting machines.
Negativity Begetting Cynicism? An East Carolina University academic paper from earlier this year suggested that "Daily Show" viewing had "detrimental effects, driving down support for political institutions and leaders among those already inclined toward nonparticipation." This report’s findings – showing 97 percent negative coverage towards political leaders and political issues – reinforce this concern.
These results are based on CMPA's ongoing scientific content analysis of election coverage on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening news, as well as "Daily Show" coverage in the week leading up to Election Day.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
When I want to be entertained
December 22, 2006 - 06:28 ET by Andrew H.When I want to be entertained, the last thing on my list is to watch a democratic politician get treated with deference on any show (and that's what he does). I don't understand the attraction of Stewart's show at all--I guess he gets ratings high enough to remain but for the life of me... there are far better and more funny shows and movies.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
The article just pointed out
December 22, 2006 - 11:54 ET by crsheddThe article just pointed out that democrats are not treated with deference. In fact, the politician ridiculed MOST was John Kerry, a democrat.
With it's high ratings amoung the young, Stewart shows the distrust of politicians in general. Maybe both parties need to start 'thinking outside the box' and quit doing the same old thing.
There's no reason for me to a
December 22, 2006 - 15:37 ET by Andrew H.There's no reason for me to assume a study from academia is accurate--especially when it comes to politics. Maybe Kerry was treated "fairly." But it is suspect because I have seen just enough of his inertviews to see Stewart wallow around with most dims, having great fun toward Republicans--including Kerry. I'd like to see an MRC study on this show. I bet it would not show the same results. Do you think it would?
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
This is an easy one. "Ne
December 22, 2006 - 07:48 ET by sarcasmoThis is an easy one. "Negativity" is NOT a problem in our political culture, too goddam much SPENDING is the problem, and those of us who are consistently "negative" about big government rely on that inconvenient-ol' First Amendment to keep being "negative" until something positive is done for everyone's grandkids' future. I'm not holding my breath, but perhaps someone can explain to me what's so bad in this sea of red ink about "driving down support for political institutions and (so-called) 'leaders'"?
As for making fun of electronic voting machines, perhaps that's because they deserve it because their alleged "security" still sucks, bigtime, as I said before (& saved the URL). Want less jokes about Diebold? Try responding to the nerdy-looking guys intelligently instead of whining about Stewart's coverage of the issue, which frankly kicks-butt on the "mainstream" networks and people here need to just deal with it coherently & in a non-partisan way for once, IMO.
JMR
I find it funny that you use
December 22, 2006 - 08:25 ET by dan victoriI find it funny that you use the phrase John Stewart coverage and Non -Partisan in the same sentence. We all know there are problems with spending, voting machines, the war, health care etc. What turns me off and I am sure plenty of other people about John Stewart, and more to the point his audience is the pseudo intellectual shallowness that all seem to possess. Stewart and his phony never had an independent thought audience laugh as if there is some inside joke that the right leaning folks don't understand because they are too stupid to understand. We get it, just don't laugh at or mock our own. It is as if your brother (our country) was having a problem, whether it be emotional, behavioral, financial or whatever. We don't mock him, we get together and help. Something the phony hippies of the 60s didn't understand, and the phony hippies of the 21st century don't understand.
This is "tough love,&q
December 22, 2006 - 08:30 ET by sarcasmoThis is "tough love," I stand by all my words above, and I'll repeat, Jon's coverage of the Diebold issue in the quicktime movie above kicks ass on anything you can show me from Fox, Nbc, Cbs, Abc, or any other media outlet. The "hippie" name calling is a symptom of your obviously being unable to debate my points, so I'm not bothered by that, either.
JMR
Sarc, I guess if it were not
December 22, 2006 - 08:59 ET by inquiringmindSarc, I guess if it were not for the left's screaming about needing electronic voting machines so as to make sure the right wasn't cheating then they would have a better point. I think the fact that the machines are less than perfect naturally opens them up for comedic fodder. I'm not so offended by it because I look at the source, Jon Stewart. Same as when Rosie opens her mouth, I take what she says with a grain of salt. ( OK, OK a salt block) Her mouth moves but the brain does not engage. She's on the View for ratings alone. Not to bring thoughtful discourse, but rather to make sure everone is talking about the show the next day.
The sensible lefties I know a
December 22, 2006 - 09:30 ET by sarcasmoThe sensible lefties I know are (rightly) screaming for a paper-trail, and for good reason. I have a very simple point, which -- but for all the incessant whines & name-calling -- SHOULD be a non-partisan issue. I think taxpayers deserve halfway-decent security if we're supposed to "trust" electronic voting machines. I value said halfway-decent computer security hygiene even above Diebold's corporate secrets over voting machine software (which is frankly more like a college level computer class project than rocket-science). What can I say? I'm not a Diebold stockholder. I trust nerdy-looking guys like Professor Avi Rubin, and I don't trust Diebold flacks or ass-covering politicians who want to defend the purchase of insecure machines with tax dollars. Let the nerds I trust lift the hood on the software I'm supposed to trust, with the freedom to actually-disclose security flaws when (I have seen too much crappy computer security hygiene for it to be anything close to an "if," sorry) they find 'em, and I'll be happy. Until then, I'm with Stewart cracking "negative" jokes and making young people "cynical," and (to be honest) finding it as fun as it is necessary. I've said this before, but as a libertarian I find Stewart a lot like Gibson on Fox News -- both are honestly-partisan, so I'm rarely if ever surprised/outraged at what comes out of either one's mouth. What I dislike is dishonest partisans with the pretense of objectivity, but clearly neither man has that problem!
JMR
This is truly a case of bei
December 22, 2006 - 10:43 ET by dagdaThis is truly a case of being careful what you ask for because you may get it. The Dems wanted electronic machines. They were tickled to death to call for them, now that they have them they are complaining again (and it is the Republicans fault). Democratic Broward County wanted butterfly ballots. They got them and then they had a chad problem. Somehow this became Harris's problem, even though she had nothing to do with either the selection of the ballots or the counting. All she did was certify the count, but still it was a Republican problem.
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
No matter who asked for ele
December 22, 2006 - 11:07 ET by sarcasmoNo matter who asked for elecronic machines -- and I strongly suspect elections supervisors of both "major" parties got suckered-in by Diebold lobbyist-flacks on this one -- my point remains, and it should be a nonpartisan one despite the struggles of some: Halfway-decent computer security hygiene isn't an option, and my interest as a taxpayer in honest elections trumps Diebold's interest in voting software secrecy. This has nothing to do with paper chads in past elections, it has to do with future elections if people keep ignoring the very first (cloaked, so I saved it for convenient reposting when whines re-emerged like today...) link in the very first post I made in this thread, and the blatantly-obvious ideas of the 2 computer security experts I cited on how to improve things haven't even been challenged -- much less refuted -- here today.
JMR
Scariest thing about the Daily Show
December 22, 2006 - 11:29 ET by Jonah JohansenThere is the very liberal "intellectual" where I work. We were having a friendly political debate, I asked something to the effect do you know who [blank] is, he says Yes, I saw him on the daily show. This person [Blank] was a regular guest on all the evening cable news shows and appeared ever so often on the Sunday Morning shows. I suddenly realized why it was so easy to win a debate with this guy. I realized why he mixed up Clarke and Joe Wilson. The Daly show was his primary possibly only current news source.
Yesterday my wife was talking to her highly educated, world traveling, friend married to the brilliant scientist about Iran. After this friend spouted one piece of misinformation after another my wife asked where she got her information, the Daly show and a HBO "documentary".
Pretty Sad.
I wonder from which episode o
December 22, 2006 - 11:34 ET by Roger the ShrubberI wonder from which episode of "Real Sex" was that information about Iran taken from? :p
Almost as scary as those who
December 22, 2006 - 12:01 ET by crsheddAlmost as scary as those who get their news ONLY from Fox "News".
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc
Yawn- More b.s. obsession abo
December 22, 2006 - 15:47 ET by kathleenirishYawn- More b.s. obsession about a so-called concern about people who 'only' get their news from Fox. Find something real to worry about, your fear of Fox is totally irrational. Fear the MSM outlets like ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, CNN and the NYT-types who have totally flung themselves at the feet of their Democratic liberal masters. Not a word about Sandy Berger destroying National Security Documents, for example. You aren't worried about those who get news from Fox, you're fearful of those of us who do not buy the party line of the rest of the MSM, like you.
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
Unbelievable. Surely the CMPA
December 23, 2006 - 12:40 ET by balboaUnbelievable. Surely the CMPA has better things to do than analyze a comedy show's handling of pre-election coverage. What a waste.