Suchergebnisse

Political satire is a complex form of political discourse that is evident in democratic media systems across the globe. Its diversity has led many to argue that it is impossible to put forward a proper definition that encompasses all of its seemingly infinite permutations, and all extant attempts to define this unwieldy concept have been met with much criticism. Not one communicative act can be studied and understood properly without being well defined. Studies of political satire are on the rise and much knowledge has been generated over the last decade. However, these lines of research will fall into stagnation if the central communication construct driving these efforts is not explicated with the necessary precision. This essay offers a comprehensive definition of political satire in an effort to create a foundation from which this area of study can continue to flourish. ; Klein College of Media and Communication ; Communication and Social Influence

This article offers a formal normative assessment of political satire. It summarizes social scientific research on the influence of political satire and findings on the normative implications of political satire within a democratic framework. Two cogent lines of empirical research, persuasion and understanding, receive special attention. Political satire's potential to generate normatively positive democratic effects is examined according to three competing theories of democracy: republicanism, pluralism, and elitism. Reports of its relatively small effect prevent clear normative judgments on satire as good or bad for democracy. However, its relationship to internal political self-efficacy merits further investigation. At the system level, political satire might generate significant normatively positive effects in the republican and elitist democratic frameworks. Examples of U.S. traditional political satire reveal the boundaries within which satire functions and their impact on the normative roles of this potentially important form of political discourse. ; Klein College of Media and Communication ; Communication and Social Influence

This article offers a formal normative assessment of political satire. It summarizes social scientific research on the influence of political satire and findings on the normative implications of political satire within a democratic framework. Two cogent lines of empirical research, persuasion and understanding, receive special attention. Political satire's potential to generate normatively positive democratic effects is examined according to three competing theories of democracy: republicanism, pluralism, and elitism. Reports of its relatively small effect prevent clear normative judgments on satire as good or bad for democracy. However, its relationship to internal political self-efficacy merits further investigation. At the system level, political satire might generate significant normatively positive effects in the republican and elitist democratic frameworks. Examples of U.S. traditional political satire reveal the boundaries within which satire functions and their impact on the normative roles of this potentially important form of political discourse.

General questions concerning the role of entertainment media in politics permeated the 2004 election cycle. Political communication scholars are beginning to systematically analyze potential sociopolitical ramifications stemming from entertainment television viewing, but one difficulty with this emerging area of research is an inability to forge connections between seemingly disparate research agendas. Several distinct lines of research are summarized in this article and forged into a coherent whole through the lens of Zillmann's disposition theory and the broader study of media enjoyment. Extantworks devoted to the study of entertainment television and politics are summarized, and a ninepart typology is introduced. This article closes with a discussion of howthe typology can serve to advance the study of entertainment television and politics.

This study analyzes the effects of political talk radio use on the perceived fairness of the 2000 U.S. presidential election. In particular, a process of influence is hypothesized leading from talk radio use to feelings toward the two major-party candidates (Bush and Gore). Citizens' affective associations with the candidates are then argued to have competing effects on the perceived fairness of the 2000 election. The influence of perceived fairness on subsequent feelings toward Bush is also assessed. This process of political talk radio influence is analyzed in a single structural equation model using 2000-02 American National Election Study (ANES) panel data. Political talk radio use leads to negative perceptions of Gore, which negatively influences perceptions of the perceived fairness of the 2000 election. Conversely, talk radio use generates more positive feelings toward Bush, which positively affects perceptions of fairness. Thus, feelings toward both candidates serve as important mediators that allow the use of this public affairs information source to make citizens feel better about how the fiercely contested 2000 presidential election was decided. Perceived fairness is also found to be a significant positive predictor of post-2002 election cycle attitudes toward Bush, even after accounting for prior feelings toward both Bush and Gore. Implications for these finding are outlined and future lines of research are detailed.

Analyzes direct and indirect influences of the largely conservative public affairs information source, including its effect on citizen's affective associations with candidates, focusing on the 2000 contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore; based on 2000-02 American National Election Study (ANES) panel data.