http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01474.html

Jon Stewart, Enemy of Democracy?

By Richard Morin
Friday, June 23, 2006; Page A02

This is not funny: Jon Stewart and his hit Comedy Central cable show may be poisoning democracy.

Two political scientists found that young people who watch Stewart's faux news program, "The Daily Show," develop cynical views about politics and politicians that could lead them to just say no to voting.


Comedian and fake-news anchorman Jon Stewart makes the already cynical viewers of Comedy Central's
Comedian and fake-news anchorman Jon Stewart makes the already cynical viewers of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" even more cynical -- and possibly less likely to vote, two political scientists at East Carolina University say. (Comedy Central)

That's particularly dismaying news because the show is hugely popular among college students, many of whom already don't bother to cast ballots.

Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan S. Morris of East Carolina University said previous research found that nearly half -- 48 percent -- of this age group watched "The Daily Show" and only 23 percent of show viewers followed "hard news" programs closely.

To test for a "Daily Effect," Baumgartner and Morris showed video clips of coverage of the 2004 presidential candidates to one group of college students and campaign coverage from "The CBS Evening News" to another group. Then they measured the students' attitudes toward politics, President Bush and the Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.).

The results showed that the participants rated both candidates more negatively after watching Stewart's program. Participants also expressed less trust in the electoral system and more cynical views of the news media, according to the researchers' article, in the latest issue of American Politics Research.

"Ultimately, negative perceptions of candidates could have participation implications by keeping more youth from the polls," they wrote.

Miserly Republicans, Unprincipled Democrats

Are Republicans stingy but principled while Democrats are generous but racist?

"I wouldn't put it quite so starkly," said Stanford University professor Shanto Iyengar. He would prefer to call Democrats "less principled" rather than bigoted, based on his analysis of data collected in a recent online experiment that he conducted with The Washington Post and washingtonpost.com.

As reported in this column a few weeks ago, the study found that people were less likely to give extended aid to black Hurricane Katrina victims than to white ones. The race penalty, on average, totaled about $1,000 per black victim.

As Iyengar and his colleagues subsequently dug deeper into these data, another finding emerged: Republicans consistently gave less aid, and gave over a shorter period of time, to victims regardless of race.

Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine.

But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority. (Even with this race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans.) "Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues."

To test the effects of race, participants in the study were asked to read a news article about Katrina victims. Some read a story featuring a white person. Some read identical stories -- except the victim was black, Asian or Hispanic. Then they were asked how much assistance they think the government should give to help hurricane victims. Approximately 2,300 people participated in the study.

Iyengar said he's not surprised by the latest findings: "This pattern of results matches perfectly an earlier study I did on race and crime" with Franklin D. Gilliam Jr. of UCLA. "Republicans supported tough treatment of criminals no matter what they encountered in the news. Others were more elastic in their position, coming to support more harsh measures when the criminal suspect they encountered was non-white."

most people assume i dont like john stewart for my political beliefs. when in reality i just dont find him all that funny.

Wasn't it not that long ago a study found that viewers of his show were, on average, better informed than viewers of regular news programs? That would seem to me to imply that being more cognizant of the realities of the situation leaves one feeling frustrated and unwilling to take part in what usually amounts to a bullshit circus.

a recent study also showed that studys are usually 72% inaccurate

That's well within my calculations of acceptable margin of error.

They'd have to be, because if they weren't, his jokes wouldn't make any sense. If you don't know what's going on in American and world politics, the Daily Show would be boring as hell.

"The results showed that the participants rated both candidates more negatively after watching Stewart's program. Participants also expressed less trust in the electoral system and more cynical views of the news media, according to the researchers' article, in the latest issue of American Politics Research."

They speak of this as if it's a BAD thing. It's just too bad these kids didn't realize the electorial system was being fucked with at the time and actually PROTESTED IT! They speak of the students' cynicism as if it's a bad thing, which is shameful. If anything, I see it as a good thing, maybe I will be a member of the generation that presidential candidates actually have to PROVE THEMSELVES TO in order to get elected instead of the pathetic excuses for a candidacies (sp?) that exist at this time.

I totally agree with you.

The Daily Show also doesn't run some stupid-ass bit about new products, ways to succeed in the market, or reunited family members every 10 minutes, either. And he doesn't go to commercial by saying "Up next: real estate prices are climbing slowly. How you can make the most of this."

So, yeah, when you stick to actual news it is more depressing.

Despite my beliefes, I find John Stewart hilarious. Both him and Colbert are pretty good....

I'm still trying to figure out why Bill Maher and Air America are still given air time...but Stewart is pretty funny.

What a horrible essay

If the truth is so depressing that it crushes people's spirits, you can hardly blame John Stewart. Ignorance is bliss, folks.

I disagree with the article, but I do know quite a few people in which the John Stewart show is their only source of politics and news. It is a great show for those that use it in the context of the entire picture, but it is sad that it is the only outlet for some people.

If I had to be locked in a room with someone, I'd rather it be a dude whose only source of news is The Daily Show then someone whose only source of news is FoxNews.

I can agree with that. The FoxNews person would only have the latest cute white girl kidnapping case to talk about, and how much they hate Jesse Jackson and Al Franken.

I think that people who watch the daily show are more informed because it's easier to remember a joke or satire, something that made you laugh, as opposed to an essay-like news report. I would put forth it's the viewers susceptibility to the format that makes them more "informed", not the actual intelligence of the viewers themselves.

Are you saying I have a shitty attention span?

What are we talking about?

I'm stating that if people can recall details about episodes of the Simpsons or The Family Guy from single lines uttered in the dialog, than the same idea could be applied to the Daily Show. Your remember, and become 'informed', because it's more than just information. It's stimulating entertainment and in Stewart's case; educational.

If I think of the "What, behind the rabbit?" It brings a flood of images and information to my mind about the movie it's from. Now if you were to repeat something I heard from Ted Koppel or Stone Phillips, well...... nothing.