Theresa Voyles

How Satire Uses Viewer Vulnerability to Sway Undecided Voters

Theresa Voyles

If you think back on recent election coverage, chances are that at least some of your memories of “news” coverage include satire. Maybe you recall The Daily Show’s coverage of the Florida governor’s race, John Oliver’s mockery of the GOP efforts to rebrand, or Stephen Colbert’s Twitter-mocking of Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Maybe you read The Onion’s piece “Midterm Candidates Distancing Selves from United States.” This trend toward satirical reportage has been surging over the last few elections. It’s worth recalling that The Daily Show has gone on the road every two years either for coverage live from the Democrat and Republican conventions, or in midterm years, to locations they considered central to major races. They traveled to D.C. in 2002 and 2010, and visited the swing state of Ohio in 2006. On October 30, 2008 Stewart and Colbert held a pre-midterm rally on the National Mall that attracted over 200,000 people and 2.5 million live viewers.

There have been some noteworthy satire moments in the last few elections: Who could forget the role that Colbert played in educating viewers on campaign finance by starting his own Super PAC, then encouraging his viewers to do the same? And then there was Tina Fey’s impersonation of Sarah Palin, which played a key role in drawing voters away from the McCain-Palin ticket. This also goes beyond the professional satirists: average citizens are tweeting, facebooking, snapchatting, and creating satirical memes that often go viral. Entire twitter accounts, for instance, are satirical. The Twitter feed for “Top Conservative Cat,” described as a “Colbert conservative,” has over 104,000 followers on Twitter.

Satire has the ability to protect its creator from culpability for criticism, because it is implied rather than overtly stated; in this way, it becomes a powerful tool for dissenters in political and social periods. What better tool than satire exists for voicing criticisms in these unstable times? Satire is more alive today than ever before, finding outlets in literature, television, the internet, comics and cartoons. Messages that would be ignored or punished if overtly declared are reaching millions of people in satirical form, and making a real difference. It may be the most powerful tool that critics have to the world.

In recent years, many people have begun using the blanket term “satire” to refer to any type of humor that involves ridicule, particularly of authority. For the purposes of this paper, satire shall be defined as any piece, whether literary, artistic, spoken, or otherwise presented, which bears the following characteristics: 1. Critique. Satire is always a critique of some form of human behavior, vice, or folly, with the intent of persuading the audience to view it disdainfully and encourages a degree of social change by doing so. 2. Irony. Instead of an obvious statement, comedians are able to exaggerate their claim in the opposite direction. For example, Will Ferrel portrayed George W. Bush as loose and silly to contrast his characteristically stiff and robotic posture and mannerism. 3. Implicitness. Satire is not an overt statement, nor does it come to an explicit verdict. Rather, the critiqued behavior is highlighted within the satirical work by being obviously absurd, most often because it is exaggerated or taken out of its normal context.

All in all, satire is a critique not stated openly, but hinted at with the primary intention of amusing an audience.

As the 2016 Election Day looms, satirical news outlet, The Daily Show, ramped up its media coverage by heading to Texas for a week of shows entitled Democalypse 2014: South by South Mess. A Comedy Central show relocated to broadcast on-the-spot election coverage. That could strike us as strange, right? But really, it does not. The idea that a satire news show would take election coverage seriously does not come as a surprise. Why has satirical news become such a major player in news media? And, is its increased social power dangerous for our democracy? Does political satire really affect political outcomes? The answer is yes. The question then becomes who is affected by satire, as well as how, and how much?

In order to answer the question of the influence of satire in a democratic political system, one must understand who exactly is being influenced Of course, democracy is dependent on popular participation in government, so the only way political satire could affect political outcomes is to influence its audience (the people) enough to sway its political opinion. Needless to say, one might point out the obvious by claiming the people influenced by satirical media are the ones viewing them, but then, who are these viewers? Most are between the ages of 18 and 35, as some shows have over half of their viewers in this category (The Daily Show, 56%,

The Colbert Report, 58%) (Gewurz). Voters within this age range make up 31% of the popular vote (NPR), which is significant, as every US presidential election has resulted in a popular vote with margins under 30% (US Elections Project). Among this demographic, satire news is increasingly overtaking mainstream news as a source of voter information, especially for younger and left-leaning voters. One poll showed that nearly one-third of Americans under the age of 40 say satirical news-oriented television programs like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show are taking the place of traditional news outlets (Rasmussen). Further research showed that among millennial voters, satire news was not only more common, but also more trusted (Gewurz). Combining the facts that so much of the popular vote is made up of millennials and over half of most satirical show viewers are millennials, political satire does have enough influence on enough people that they could alter election results.

As previously stated, it is becoming more common for young people to be using satirical news outlets as their primary source of information. While some may find this fact horrifying, it may actually not be as bad as it seems. A study conducted by the Pew Research Center has shown that viewers of satirical programs like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report score notably higher for accuracy on current events than viewers of programs like The O’Reilly Factor or The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. They also score higher than viewers of cable news sources such as CNN and Fox News (Heimlich). This research is backed by a number of other studies, including one by the Annenburg Public Policy Center which found that Colbert’s Super PAC stunt worked as well as a high school civics lesson (Rozansky). This is likely because the 24/7 television news cycle is now almost totally dominated by opinion, expert debates, punditry, and other forms of fluff that don’t actually offer much in terms of objective information. The result is that viewers who watch Fox News, MSNBC, or any other professional news stations are almost less informed about political information than viewers that watch no news at all. And, to make it worse, they are more likely to believe misinformation (Rozansky).

Young news consumers, in contrast, are more apt to question the source of their information and viewers of satire news are more likely to trust Jon Stewart than Fox News, CNN, or MSNBC as a source of news. Keep in mind that this is coming from voters who have increasing distrust in politicians, the media, and other authority figures. Often television news today packages information in stark oppositions that then allow “experts” to present opposite points of view. These oppositions are sometimes, if not oftentimes, based on false binaries, faulty logic, or just hyperbole. Such a format does not enhance the critical thinking necessary for informed democratic participation.

In my research, I’ve found satirists are often falsely blamed for the state of news, but satire, as defined above, simply comments on and highlights the flaws in politics as well as the media. Satire, by nature, exposes, mocks, and laughs at general thoughtlessness and works by asking the audience to think critically and to question the status quo. In this way, satirists like Stewart, Colbert, and Oliver function as a corrective for the sensational, and silly, news that is reported on cable television.

When journalists cover political satire, a common angle is questioning how it may influence the outcome of an upcoming election. High-profile stunts get the same treatment. More than 200,000 people attended Jon Stewart’s and Stephen Colbert’s 2010 Rally to Restore Sanity, while Colbert formed his Super PAC Making a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow to raise awareness of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Both stunts engendered a chorus of voices asking, “How is this going to affect the vote?”

“Affecting the vote” does not mean that these programs are somehow missing their comedic mark, nor does it prove that satire is removed from the real world of political action and debate. The very idea of a democratic system is premised on the existence of an informed and engaged citizenry (a populace that not only votes, but also thinks, feels, speaks and agitates). The more interesting question one could ask about a piece of satire — or any form of political speech — is how it impacts us as citizens over time. On that count, parody news is accomplishing plenty, and John Oliver’s program is a particularly successful one.

Oliver follows the path forged by “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and “The Colbert Report.” For his part, Stewart parses the mainstream news of the day, often critiquing the sensationalism and laziness of its coverage. The show has also become one of the only places on television (along with “The Colbert Report”) where academics and other public thinkers are invited on to participate in thorough, nuanced discussions of their ideas.

Once it is known who is influenced by satire, it is important to know how they are influenced. Humor can be used as an effective means of evading censorship; depending on how it is received, it can alter peoples’ political opinions. If the audience is not made to laugh, it is possible that audience may be influenced in the manner the comedian was trying to avoid.

When successful, eliciting laughter at another candidate in an election is a tactful move, as undecided voters are more likely to decide they like a candidate if they are made to laugh. For example, Will Ferrell said in an interview that he believed the popularity of playing Bush on Saturday Night Live humanized the real George W. Bush to the country, and ultimately aided Bush’s narrow win over Al Gore (Mathews). However, the opposite effect can happen if the statement is too bold, or just not found funny. Instead of being pressured to laugh by the audience, undecided voters may decide they do not like a candidate if they are not made to laugh and the experience is awkward (Mathews). To combat this, many satirical shows have big electronic billboards which read ‘laugh’ after a punch line is delivered.

Sometimes, viewing satire can lead to such an overwhelming distrust of the candidates or system, that it shies viewers away from voting at all. Even though this was found to be the rarest effect of viewing satire, I found in some cases that voters were so deterred from candidates, and the political system for that matter, that they decided despite every person in america shouting “GO VOTE!” at them, they would not participate in the election.

The rise in the use of satirical news as a primary source has led scholars to question the impact of these humorous news outlets on politics. One thing is clear: Satire has made politics more accessible, leading to more informed viewers who have the potential to form more educated opinions to be presented and discussed with others. The advantage of satirical news is that it chooses reports based on comedic value, which—instead of deviating from essential information—often accentuates the news and underscores important issues in politics. Colbert’s super PAC is a prime example. Although the comedian seemed to be exaggerating, current PAC regulation allowed Colbert to do nearly anything he wanted with his committee, which he took full advantage of to accessibly and humorously underscore his unrestricted freedom without deviating from facts. Colbert makes claims inadvertently, which is certainly more effective than spitting opinions at his viewers. It is examples as this that show political satire having an influence on election results merely by the way ideas are received

What I tend to think is that people have always liked jokes, and they like them very much when they have nothing to do with politics and they like them less when they have something to do with politics. But they still like jokes.

So our goal really – if they take anything away, I would imagine it would be that you can have a view of the world that is informed by absurdity or humor that still allows you to feel like you are connected to it. But I don’t know that there would be much more than that.

I don’t think that they are watching [satire] and thinking that…what they are taking away from it is a feeling of empowerment or something else that people would maybe think that it is. -Jon Stewart (Radio Free Europe)

This “sense of empowerment” of which Stewart speaks could be the secret to why political satire has so much popularity. Having the power to laugh at those in charge gives a sense of control to those laughing. Other than deciding who is in office, citizens can only sit and watch officials do what they think is best for the country, which can be terrifying, especially for those adamantly against that official. Satire gives its audience power over those in power, if only for as long as the duration of the show. When Alec Baldwin portrayed Donald Trump on SNL he made the audience laugh by dramatizing Trump’s anger and narcissism in with comedic twist. It is the light-hearted humor, combined with the vulnerability of the audience which allows viewers to be impacted by satire. I n conclusion, political satire affects elections in that it affects the people when they are most receptive. While humor is subjective, the act of laughing is universal. It’s something we feel and to which we can relate. It releases endorphins and makes us feel bonded to those around us. Humor also helps deconstruct complex issues—not necessarily dumbing down, but clarifying in a way only comedy can. Furthermore, it’s thought-provoking. Unlike politics, there are few rules, if any. Comedians use humor to push the envelope, to color outside the lines—to be honest, authentic and unapologetic—a mindset that’s largely opposed to the one that dictates politics. So really, no, “Saturday Night Live” skits won’t completely determine who becomes president. But they do have influence on the way we think about candidates and policies, and definitely influence the future opinions of Americans.

“Millennials Now Rival Boomers As A Political Force, But Will They Actually Vote?” NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.

McClennen, Sophia A. “Does Satire News Influence Elections?” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.

Gewurz, Danielle. “Section 4: Demographics and Political Views of News Audiences.” Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. N.p., 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.

“National-1789-present - United States Elections Project.” United States Elections Project. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.

Rasmussen_Poll. “Nearly One-Third of Younger Americans See Colbert, Stewart As Alternatives to Traditional News Outlets.” Rasmussen Reports: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.

Gewurz, Danielle. “Section 3: News Attitudes and Habits.” Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. N.p., 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.

Heimlich, Russell. “Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions.” Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. N.p., 2007. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.

Rozansky, Michael. “Stephen Colbert’s Civics Lesson: Or, How a TV Humorist Taught America about Campaign Finance.” The Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2 June 2014. Web.

“Political Satire: Beyond the Humor | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson.” Harvard News. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.

“Jon Stewart On The Value Of Political Satire.” RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.

Mathews, Chris. “Politics and the Poe Roof Humor and Satire.” MSNBC. MSNBC, 18 Oct. 2016. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.

“Laughing to the White House: Why Comedy and Politics Need Each Other.” Pastemagazine.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.