![]()
R. Lance Holbert
School of Journalism and Mass Communications University of South Carolina
The call for papers that served as a foundation for this Mass Communication and Society special issue details four hurdles the study of political entertainment media needs to overcome to further solidify itself within the field. The four points offered in the call were as follows: (1) stepping beyond outlet-specific research agendas, (2) wrestling with the boundaries of what can be classified as political entertainment media, (3) linking strong empirical and cultural studies work being conducted in this area, and (4) identifying theoretical traditions that can help build cogent lines of research. From my point of view, it seems reasonable to use these four issues as criteria to evaluate whether the special issue accomplished its goals. For those researchers who choose wisely to consume the special issue from start to finish, it will become clear that three of the four criteria have been addressed full well. This insight becomes all the more apparent when adopting a multi-level approach; looking not only at the individual articles, but more holistically at the special issue within which they are nested. This special issue provides new knowledge that moves the field beyond outlet-specific findings, challenges the conceptual boundaries of political entertainment media, and identifies theories that can serve as building blocks for substantive lines of research. The one proposed topic from the call not addressed in any significant fashion within this special issue is a linking of the social scientific and humanistic traditions. However, researchers interested in this latter topic would be well served to spend a bit of time with a recent special issue of the International Journal of Communication (IJoC), entitled “Breaking Boundaries: Working Across the Methodological and Epistemological Divide in the Study of Political Entertainment” and edited by Professors Dannagal G. Young and Jonathan Gray. The IJoC special issue pairs scholars’ contributions in a manner that creates clear linkages between the empirical and cultural studies traditions. Overall, it is the conclusion of this editor that the current Mass Communication and Society special issue is a success and I am confident the works contained within will serve to advance the field.
Building off the referencing of another recent special issue devoted to the topic of political entertainment media, it is clear this area of study is moving along well in establishing legitimacy in the field. There is a critical mass of scholars interested in this topic, clear cases have been made for its social significance and relevance, and there is every indication the use of entertainment media within the realm of politics will only continue to grow in the coming years. Once more, the study of political entertainment media is worldwide in scope (see Baym & Jones, 2012). The global nature of this area of study is also reflected in the current special issue, with one-third of the entries coming from outside the United States. In order to build on this momentum, political entertainment media scholarship needs to establish clearly defined and cogent lines of theoretically-driven research, continue to adapt to the changing media landscape, and study media activities that mirror citizens’ subjective experiences. It is my sincere hope the current special issue serves to advance this cause.
There are six entries offered in the special issue, and the ordering of the articles reflects the linking of three pairs of works. The first pairing represents the classic distinction between affect and cognition. The Lee et al. group hailing from the University of Michigan brings a dominant approach to the study of affect within political communication (i.e., affective intelligence; Marcus, Neuman, & MacKuen, 2000) into the political entertainment media fold. In contrast, the Hardy et al. group from the University of Pennsylvania focuses its attention on the most fundamental of cognitive democratic outcomes, the generation of political knowledge. It is important for the study of political entertainment media to assess the potential to generate positive normative outcomes, especially given the continued debate over whether satire is good or bad for democracy (see Hart & Hartelius, 2007). The establishment of strong affective- and cognitive-driven lines of research is essential to the continued advancement of political entertainment media research. Human beings are rational, but also emotional creatures and both of lines of research need to move forward for substantive insights to be offered about the role of political entertainment media in affecting democratic processes and outcomes.
The second pair of works come from research conducted in Europe and seek to expand the boundaries of what should be defined as “political entertainment media.” Like all other areas of research, political entertainment media desires increased explanatory power. The expanding of the boundaries of the concept is essential to increasing the theoretical significance of this area of research. The Boukes et al. group out of the Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) argues opinionated news needs to be viewed as political entertainment, details a complex set of indirect effects, and identifies conditions under which particular specific indirect effects may dominate. The expansion of political entertainment media to include opinionated news is an important advancement for social scientific research in this area and mirrors arguments being made from more humanistic perspectives (see work of Jeffrey P. Jones). The Roth et al. entry from the University of Mannheim is looking at a similar content area, but approaching the topic from the explanatory principles of eudemonic and hedonic motivations. There is a real need for the study of political entertainment media to embrace a diversity of explanatory principles and the Roth et al. work performs an important service by moving the field beyond the understanding- and consistency-driven principles that have dominated this area to date.
The final pairing, respective works contributed by LaMarre et al. and Becker, focus on core cognitive processes involved in the production of political entertainment media effects. The LaMarre et al. multi-study article stresses the importance of identifying different types of satire when looking at the ability of this form of political discourse to generate persuasion-based outcomes. Their finding of Horatian satire allowing for the retention of agency by recipients (i.e., the satirees) while Juvenalian satire grants agency to the persuader (i.e., the satirist) is an insight that should produce much additional research. Last, but far from least, the Becker submission focuses on political efficacy. In particular, this work stresses the need to focus on pre-existing orientations toward political humor (see Holbert, Lee, Esralew, Walther, Hmielowski, & Landreville, 2013) in determining the effects of political entertainment media. In addition, this work stresses the conditional nature and inherent complexity of political entertainment media effects. The LaMarre et al. and Becker pieces provide quality insights about how the recipient needs to be studied in combination with specific message types in the generation of processes of influence that can produce a range of democratic outcomes that span the hierarchy of effects.
My sincere thanks goes to everyone who submitted a manuscript for the special issue. The volume of submissions was larger than expected and the quality was very high. Given the high volume of submissions, this special issue would not have come to fruition if it had not been for the tireless efforts of an army of reviewers who provided valid and reliable insights on works ranging widely in theoretical argumentation, methodological design, and analyses. I would also like to offer much gratitude to Mass Communication & Society Editor Ran Wei and Chris Frear, his editorial assistant. These gentlemen scholars were fully supportive of the project from the start, offered quality insights about the process of editing a special issue, and have been most accommodating when any special requests passed across their desks. The process of putting together this special issue has remained on schedule and there is no way the special issue would have come together as it did without their professionalism and diligence. In the end, the works offered in this special issue will challenge the field, offers genuine new knowledge, and will undoubtedly spark additional research. These are the hallmarks of a quality special issue and it is all due to the hard work and creativity of its contributors.
REFERENCES
Baym, G., & Jones, J. P. (2012). News parody and political parody across the globe. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hart, R. P., & Hartelius, J. (2007). The political sins of Jon Stewart. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24, 263–272.
Holbert, R. L., Lee, J., Esralew, S. E., Walther, W. O., Hmielowski, J. D., & Landreville, K. D. (2013). Affinity for political humor: An assessment of internal factor structure, reliability, and validity. Humor: Interdisciplinary Journal of Humor Research, 26, 551–572.
Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
R. Lance Holbert (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2000) is Professor and Associate Director for Graduate Studies and Research in the School of Journalism and Mass Communications at the University of South Carolina. His research interests include political communication, persuasion, and media effects.
![]()
The Affect Effect of Political Satire: Sarcastic Humor, Negative Emotions, and Political Participation
Hoon Lee
Nam Center for Korean Studies, University of Michigan
Nojin Kwak
Communication Studies University of Michigan
Building on the Orientation-Stimulus-Orientation-Response (O-S-O-R) framework, the current study proposes a mediation model wherein negative emotions serve as a second O. An online experiment using a representative sample demonstrated that consuming sarcastic political humor can indirectly increase the likelihood of political participation by eliciting negative emotions toward a government policy. In addition, we introduced education as a first O, illustrating that the indirect mobilizing effect of the viewing of sarcastic humor through negative emotions is stronger for political sophisticates. The proposed model suggests avenues for exploring the role of emerging media genres that are presumably less enlightening yet are more emotionally provocative.
INTRODUCTION
The influx of emerging news sources has led many to wonder whether mass publics will become more responsible democratic citizens with rapidly expanding choices of information at hand (see e.g., Prior, 2007). Particularly noteworthy in this trend has been the rise of satire in the political domain. The soaring influence of this genre was well displayed when President Obama sat down with Jon Stewart for an extended interview on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on October 27, 2010. Further, Comedy Central’s Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, hosted by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert at the peak of the 2010 midterm election, embodied satirical humor’s prominence in modern political discourse.1 Nevertheless, findings concerning whether the viewing of political humor spurs or thwarts political engagement are inconclusive; some attending to a harmful or null effect (Baumgartner, 2008; Baumgartner & Morris, 2006), whereas others illuminating political humor’s salutary role in revitalizing democracy (Cao & Brewer, 2008; Moy, Xenos, & Hess, 2005).
Against the backdrop of incongruent results, more recent studies adopted a process-oriented approach and highlighted that the civic influence of political comedy is significantly mediated by numerous factors such as internal efficacy, discussion frequency, online interaction, and network size (Hoffman & Thomson, 2009; Lee, 2012). The current study aims to extend this line of research and specifically proposes the Orientation-Stimulus-Orientation-Response (O-S-O-R) framework (Markus & Zajonc, 1985; McLeod, Kosicki, & McLeod, 1994) as an analytical framework to assess the role of political entertainment in promotion of participatory democracy. Beyond the long-established mediating role of cognitive factors in traditional media research, emotions are advanced as a viable second O situated between the reception of provocative messages and the resulting political outcomes. This study designed a...
