No joke: a comparison of substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and broadcast network television coverage of the 2004 presidential election campaign.

The 2004 elections saw the highest turnout among voters under 30 in more than a decade ("Election Turnout," 2005). As this age group becomes more important in the political process it has also shifted trends in media usage. In particular, young voters are turning to comedic sources for campaign information, rather than more traditional news formats (Pew Research Center, 2004a). What are the implications of this new trend in information seeking, given the presumption that a successful democracy depends on an informed electorate (Williams & Edy, 1999)? Can a humorous political news source possibly be as informative as traditional political news sources? To answer such questions requires multiple studies addressing a wide range of related concerns. Yet, to date there has been little scholarly attention to and no systematic examination of how comedic television messages compare to more traditional television news messages as sources of substantive political information. This study begins to address the questions raised by this new trend by systematically comparing The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and broadcast television network newscasts as sources of political campaign information, using content analysis to compare the quality and quantity of 2004 presidential campaign information provided by The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and television networks.

Media Dependency Theory

Communication scholars have long considered providing information about the world to be a central function of media (Fox, 2003; Lasswell, 1948; Lippmann, 1921; Price & Roberts, 1987; Wright, 1974). Among the classic writings in this area, Lippmann (1921) noted that the pictures in one's head of the world outside are based on information provided by the press, particularly for the world beyond one's direct experience. Media theorists DeFleur and Ball-Rokeach (1989) define this relationship with media as one of dependency based on goals and resources. According to their media dependency theory, media control information resources that are important for individual goals, such as goals of social understanding (Ball-Rokeach, 1998; DeFleur & Ball-Rokeach, 1989). For issues and events outside of direct experience, people lack information needed to create social meaning, which creates ambiguity (Ball-Rokeach, 1998). Media can fill those voids with second-hand information that is central to constructions of social reality (Ball-Rokeach, 1998). Such media effects on knowledge and beliefs, as well as behaviors, are more likely when media serve a central information function (Ball-Rokeach, 1998; DeFleur & Ball-Rokeach, 1989). "If, out of habit or necessity, we incorporate the media system as a major vehicle for understanding, then the media system takes on a certain power to influence how we think, feel, and act" (DeFleur & Ball-Rokeach, 1989, p. 316).

For political information, in particular, most people have very little direct contact with politicians and get most of their political information from the media. Media dependency theory suggests, then, that it is critically important to examine the content of mediated political communication as such information may well be used as the basis for political knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Such examinations should, of course, include traditional sources of news on which people have relied for decades for political information, such as the broadcast television networks' nightly newscasts. But media dependency theory suggests it is also critical to examine emerging and increasingly important mediated sources of political information, as media dependencies are considered to be a function of expectations about the potential utility of the media content (DeFleur & Ball-Rokeach, 1989). Given the growing number of young voters who say they expect The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to fulfill their political information needs, it begs the question as to whether those needs can be satisfied with that show as well as they can be with more traditional television news coverage of political information.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart as a Source of Campaign Information

More than 20 million under-30 voters cast their ballots in the 2004 presidential election, marking the highest voter turnout for that age group in more than 12 years (Fleischer, 2004; "Under-30," 2004). As voter turnout among this age group increased, news sources of political information for these voters shifted away from the broadcast television networks and toward comedy programs such as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Specifically, a Pew Research Center (2004a) nationwide survey found the percentage of under-30 respondents (21%) who said they relied regularly upon comedy shows such as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart for campaign information was the same as the percentage of under-30 respondents (23%) who said they regularly relied upon the television networks' evening news for campaign information. The percentage of under-30 respondents who said they relied on comedy shows for campaign information is more than double the percentage found in a similar Pew study in 2000 (9%), while the percentage of under-30 voters who regularly relied on broadcast network news declined to almost half of what was found in 2000 (39%) (Pew Research Center, 2004a). Furthermore, television ratings during the Iowa Caucus, New Hampshire primary, and State of the Union address found more male viewers in the 18- to 34-year-old demographic watched The Daily Show with Jon Stewart than network news ("Young America's," 2004).

Despite the growing reliance in recent years among young voters on comedy programs for campaign information, there has been precious little systematic examination of this information source, and no published systematic comparison of substantive political coverage in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart with traditional television newscasts. In discussing whether or not The Daily Show with Jon Stewart should be considered real "news," McKain (2005) describes how the format and formal structural features (e.g. "live" reports) of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart mimic those of traditional television newscasts. He also discusses how much of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart focuses on skewering broadcast and cable network television news coverage of politics as well as politicians' efforts to spin that coverage. McKain goes so far as to consider whether those who only get their news from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart will "get" the jokes without benefit of learning factual information first from traditional news sources. And, he points out that, occasionally, content first presented on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, notably John Edwards announcing his candidacy on the show, is later covered as legitimate news by traditional news outlets. But McKain never makes a direct comparison between the substantive political content presented on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and on more traditional television newscasts.

What would such a comparison find? First, the sources must be considered separately in terms of their substantive political content. Concerning the relative amount of substantive political information presented on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, it seems somewhat obvious that a systematic analysis is likely to find considerably more humorous content than substantive political information on the show. While The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was nominated for a Television Critics Association award for "Outstanding Achievement in News and Information" in 2003 and in 2005 and won the award in 2004 ("Comedy Central's," 2003; "The Daily Show's," 2005), Stewart insists that he is a comedian, not a journalist, and that his program is a comedy show, not a newscast (Armour, 2005; Davies, 2005; Gilbert, 2004; "The Jon Stewart," 2004). Thus, this study predicts:

[H.sub.1]: Both the video and audio emphasis in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart will be on humor rather than substance.

The question remains, however, as to how this new source of political information will stack up to more traditional sources of television news as far as substantive political information is concerned.

Broadcast Television Network News as a Source of Campaign Information

Broadcast television networks were American's primary source of news and information about presidential elections for much of the second half of the 20th century (Baker & Dessart, 1998; "Despite Uncertain," 2000; Fox, Angelini, & Goble, 2005; Graber, 1993; Pew Research Center, 2002). In 2000, cable television news sources surpassed the broadcast television networks' as the primary source of political campaign information ("Despite Uncertain," 2000). Still, there are a number of compelling reasons to compare coverage of the most recent presidential election presented on the broadcast television networks and on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

First, the trend found in the Pew (2004a) study findings suggests that broadcast network news is being supplanted by comedy programs as a regular source of campaign information for young adults. Furthermore, the broadcast network newscasts still have millions more viewers than cable and still draw the largest audience for a news program at a particular time (Johnson, 2004; Lazaroff, 2004). Finally, given the passing of Peter Jennings and the retirements of Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather, all within 9 months of the 2004 presidential election, this particular election campaign marks a significant historic moment in broadcast journalism, as it was the last presidential election campaign that the three long-time broadcast television network news anchors covered.