Running Head: FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

Framing Analysis along with Agenda Setting: Effects of Satirical Talks Shows on Viewers Perceptions of a Politician Anna Kirwan, Valerie Hatcher & Diandra Tretiu Queens University of Charlotte

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

Abstract The purpose of this study was to see how framing of a politician or a political issue on a satirical talk show affects viewers perceptions. The researchers wanted to see if there is a correlation between the uses of comedy and increase of the popularity of political issues along with seeing if college students prefer to watch satirical talk shows (i.e. The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and Saturday Night Live (SNL)) as opposed to hard news (i.e. CNN or Fox News). In order to gather information for the study, the researchers asked college participants a series of questions to inform the researchers how often students remember hearing about important political issues on a satirical talk show, and whether or not they feel more informed about those issues after watching them. The researchers found that the college participants prefer to watch satirical talk shows as opposed to hard news and discovered that they feel more informed after watching them. These findings support Hypothesis 1 and 2 and answer Research question 1. Key Words: Framing, Agenda Setting, Satirical Talk Shows

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

Framing Analysis along with Agenda Setting: Effects of Satirical Talks Shows On Viewers Perceptions of a Politician

Introduction Political figures occupy a very public domain and retain a certain authority and responsibility. Their public persona and actions are frequently framed using satirical talk shows as a platform to present them in positive and negative ways. According to Harold Lasswell (1948) (as cited in Graber, 1993), the media performs three major functions: (1) Surveillance of the world to report ongoing events, (2) Interpretation on the meaning of events, and (3) socialization of individuals into their cultural settings. Graber (1993) states that in addition to the previous three, a fourth function should be included: deliberate manipulation of politics. In order to influence the public, satirical talk shows use several forms of manipulation: framing, agenda setting, and priming as an extension of agenda setting. The concept of priming demonstrates how media attention to an issue can affect public opinion (Meeds, Al- Emadi, & Diop, 2013). According to Schuefele (2000) (as cited in Meeds, et al., 2013) where agenda-setting and priming deal with issue accessibility, framing deals with applicabilityor how the issues are interpreted by both the news media and their audiences (Meads, et al., 2013,p. 4). In Bagdikians (1997) assertion (as cited in Dahmen, 2010, p. 115) the media are the authority at any given moment for what is true and what is false, what is reality and what is fantasy. Research has shown that news coverage can focus public attention on particular topics and in

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

doing so, alter the mix of cognitions that are most readily accessible when forming political judgment (Shah, Watts, Domke & Fran, 2002). Satirical talk shows have also joined the cause when it comes to issues of politics. This has caused politicians to focus more on exemplifying likable characteristics rather than reporting on important political issues. According to Schutz (1997), most viewers will base their opinions on a politician in accordance with what they hear or see on talk shows. The attempt to measure the impact of satirical talk shows has led to an extensive body of research, allowing scholars to better categorize and explain the processes responsible for these effects (Esralew & Young, 2012). The purpose of this study was to see how framing of politicians or a political issue on a satirical talk show affects viewers perceptions. The researchers also wanted see if there is a correlation between the use of comedy and increase of political issues. In addition, the researchers wanted to find whether college students prefer to watch satirical talk shows (i.e. The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and SNL) as opposed to hard news (i.e. CNN or Fox News). In order to gather information for the study, the researchers asked college participants a series of questions to inform the researchers on how often students remember hearing about important political issues on a satirical talk show, and whether or not they felt more informed about those issues after watching them. Theory Framing or Framing Analysis Theory: Since the late 1960s, framing analysis developed by Erving Goffman, (1974) (as cited in Kent & Davis, 2006) and has helped researchers develop an understanding on how media influences public perceptions of the social world. Goffman was fascinated by the way that meaning is created and negotiated within the context of everyday life (Kent & Davis, 2006). In 1974, he published Frame Analysis; in his book, Goffman (1974)

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

discusses how frames are learned and applied and how they guide our senses (as cited in Kent & Davis, 2006). Framing Analysis Theory: argues that the expectations we form about other people, our social world, and ourselves are one of the basic elements in social life. Our expectations are based on previous experience of some kind, whether derived from a media message or direct personal experience; meaning we are not born with them (Theories of Communication, 2013). Framing, as defined by Gamson (1992) in (Meeds, et al., 2013) is a storyline that sets the scene for a particular issue to be interpreted in more than one way. In addition, framing affects the way people form judgments, recognize problems and identify solutions (Meeds, et al., 2013). According to Scheufele (1999), the word framing has been used in many different ways to label similar but different approaches to applicable concepts; he claims framing is more of a metaphor that can be distinctly translated into research questions. Framing Analysis was built on the idea that in order to frame a message in a given way, it is required that it contain certain associations rather than others. This idea can be applied to message content as well as distinct level effects on opinions and thoughts (Kernochan, 2004). According to Entman (1993) when analyzing news media coverage, text and visuals that constitute a frame, can be distinguished by their capacity to stimulate support on opposite sides in a political conflict (as cited in Dahmen, 2010 p. 117). In addition, he states that the sine qua non of successful framing is magnitude magnifying those elements of the depicted reality that favor one sides position, making them salient, while at the same time shrinking those elements that might be used to construct a counter frame(Dahmen, 2010, p. 117) . Frames allow a person to identify and understand events, giving meaning to the ongoing activities of life; therefore, frameworks are the models we use to understand our experiences and

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

the way we see things coming together as some coherent whole (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011). Since framing is used more to identify subtle but various concepts, studies have operationalized framing in combination with other concepts such as agenda setting or priming (Scheufele, 1999). Agenda setting has many uses in our society; it gives the media power to launch what news we see and hear (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011). The intellectual father of agenda setting was Walter Lippmann, who began his classic book, Public Opinion, with a chapter titled The World Outside and the Pictures in Our Heads. In his book, Lippman discusses three levels of agenda (as cited in Guo, Vu & McCombs, 2012, p.54). In terms of his phrase the pictures in our heads, the first level of agenda-setting effects answers the question: What are the pictures about? The second level of agenda setting answers the question: What are the dominant characteristics and the third level actually comes closer to answering, what are the pictures inside our head (as cited in Guo et al., 2012, p 54). The pictures therefore are our attitudes towards an object: The word object is used in social psychology to refer to the thing that a person holds an opinion about (Guo et al., 2012). According to Littlejohn and Foss (2011), the idea of issue salience as a media effect is intriguing and important. Therefore, agenda setting has been used for many purposes to establish media agenda and to retrieve public opinion (Littlejohn & Foss, 2011). Literature Review Studies Since the invention of the printing press, people have wondered about the influences mass media may have on the audience (Bryant & Thompson, 2002). In recent years, several new trends have emerged in political communication and several dynamics affect political communication in society: the social scene, the political landscape, the media environment and

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

the media content (Bryant & Thompson, 2002). The introduction of new technologies has affected the ways in which Media is presented. It changes frequently causing fluctuations in public opinion and other changes at the societal level (Bryant & Thompson, 2002). Research shows that media coverage can cause the public to focus their attention on particular topics and peoples opinions are substantially shaped by frames and cues provided by news media (Shah et al., 2002). In 2008, research was conducted to see how the media covered presidential candidates. They found not only were traditional media outlets covering candidates, but also that they were being covered by a new form of infotainment (Gilkerson, 2010). The researchers discovered politicians, especially presidential candidates, were appearing more frequently on satirical talk shows (Gilkerson, 2010). This is could be considered risky since these messages are not controlled and because politicians are the focus of countless nightly monologues jokes and satirical sketches on satirical talk shows like The Tonight Show and The Late Show (Gilkerson, 2010). The intent of this study was to examine how the frames were used to portray Democratic Party Presidential candidates Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton, and Republican Party Presidential candidate John McCain. In this study, the following questions were addressed in RQ1 thru RQ 4: What are the most common frames used by jokes told on satirical talk shows about each presidential candidate? Is there a difference between how male and female candidates are framed by late night comedians? How were other factors such as age or race, commonly used in humorous framing of the candidates? What social assumptions did these frames expose? How are candidates framed when they are portrayed by actors, compared to when they themselves appeared on SNL Skits and was the framing different from the frames used in monologue- style jokes? (Gilkerson, 2010) In order to test the theories the researchers conducted an extensive

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

multi-year content analysis of over 13,000 jokes delivered on several popular late-night entertainment programs (Gilkerson, 2010). Their research revealed that candidate appearance on entertainment-oriented programing could positively influence citizens evaluation of candidates: content analysis showed that interview questions on partisan are rarely critical and generate positive images of candidates in the minds of viewers (Gilkerson, 2010). Their findings also reveal that frames, when used in late- night humor, are simplistic representations and that comic frames of politicians lack any significant nuance while often conveying bias and misrepresentation. In addition, they suggest more research in this area should be continued since humor is reliant upon individual interpretation. A study conducted by Becker, Xenos, and Waisanen (2010), investigated satirical talk shows - one of the newest forms of reporting on politicians and political platforms. Research shows there is large audience of younger viewers focused on satirical talk shows for political updates (Becker, Xenos &Waisanen, 2010). They also state that some prefer soft news, to more traditional hard news content, simply because the genre is more appealing and entertaining (Becker et al., 2010). A research study was conducted to provide valuable insights about the role of political humor in influencing political behavior by first focusing on the pressing issue of how such content is perceived by audiences (Becker et al., 2010). Information was gathered from an interactive experiment conducted at a major Midwestern university, where a total of 332 undergraduate students participated in the study (Becker et al., 2010). A factorial design was used to allow for a separate examination of stimulus effects by condition (Becker et al., 2010). In order to conduct the study they had four groups of participants. Three of the groups watched one of the following five-minute clips: (1) hard news only, (2) comedy only, (3) a mixed clip of both

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

hard news and comedy and the fourth group was a control group that were not shown any of the clips (Becker et al., 2010). Hard news is associated with informative news channels such as CNN or FOX News, intended to portray the facts (Hoffman & Young, 2011). The results of their research underscored the need to include audience perceptions of these programs in the growing field of direct effects research. Overall, their findings suggest that viewers draw a measurable and pronounced dividing line between political comedy programs and hard news content (Becker et al., 2010). A different driver of public opinion occurs when those in power and those in the opposition move public opinion by providing and filtering information to news outlets to steer public opinion. Over the past three election cycles, the landscape of political communication and public-affairs television has continuously grown more complicated (Bayam, 2013). Bayam (2013) states that politicians have wider televisual resources at their disposal to make arguments, influence opinions, and build constituencies. Contemporary citizens, in their efforts to engage with and perhaps find pleasure in the political domain, are drawing on any number of programs and generic configurations that crisscross categories of news, entertainment, and politics (Bayam, 2013) an example would be The Daily Show. The Daily Show was analyzed, from early 2005 to 2007 with 52 episodes included in the study. Within these 52 episodes, 222 news stories were covered and analyzed; more than half of these stories referenced political topics and a fourth did so using issue framing. The Daily Show mocks the substance and form of traditional television news programs, (Brewer & Marquardt, 2007, p. 249). As mentioned by Becker et al., (2010) by doing so, they attract younger audiences. Between 2001 and 2005, its audience doubled to 1.3 million viewers a night, out of which two thirds of the viewers were between the ages of 18 and 49. These types of satirical talk shows are referred to as soft news media and

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

10

have been shown to have the potential to educate viewers about politicians and political issues while encouraging them to think critically or cynically in some cases, about traditional news (Brewer & Marquardt, 2007). Out of The Daily Shows 1.3 million viewers a night, one fourth said that they regularly or sometimes learned about presidential campaigns from comedy shows such as The Daily Show and SNL (Brewer & Marquardt, 2007). This has led to the way the audience perceives the politicians since they are viewing a very satirical point of view on the issue and it may be their only source of information (Brewer & Marquardt, 2007). These programs have at least the potential to inform viewers about political figures beyond the presidents and vice presidents, and the potential to inform viewers about public policy debate since it frequently frames politics in terms of issues (Brewer & Marquardt, 2007). The Daily Show in particular, focused on issue framing, and researchers have found that The Daily Shows viewers were more knowledgeable about politics than were non-viewers. The media arent very successful in telling us what to think, but they are stunningly successful in telling us what to think about (Griffin, 2011, p. 389). Framing one issue in particular sets the stage for what the viewers should be thinking about, and these satirical talk shows (that already hold a large viewing audience) frame what political issues and figures the audience is thinking. The direct impact that satirical talk shows can have on a politician was shown in the 2008 presidential campaign, when Tina Fey did a precise portrayal of Sarah Palin on SNL giving Palin caricature like attributes, which went viral on both television and online (Ersalew & Young, 2010). During the 10-week period of Palins campaign, a total of six parodies aired on SNL in which Fey impersonated Palin, consistently packaging the governor as unintelligent, inexperienced, ultra-conservative, and rural. The impact of entertainment-based television has led to an extensive area of research, allowing scholars to better recognize and clarify the

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

11

processes responsible for these effects. In the context of news programing agenda setting, framing and priming were originally thought to be exclusive context of informative programming. These forms of traditional political information have provided one framework through which scholars have examined political entertainment effects (Ersalew & Young, 2012). Therefore, the researchers of this study hypothesized the following H1: The salience of constructs related to Palins intelligence, competence, and experience (ICE) will be stronger after exposure to Feys impersonation on SNL. To test H1, they ran paired-samples T-test to compare the ICE scores between the pre- test and the posttests among participants in the SNL condition (Ersalew & Young, 2012). H2: The salience of constructs related to Palins rural background will be stronger after exposure to Feys impersonation on SNL (Ersalew & Young, 2012). They also ran a T-test to measure for this hypothesis as well (Ersalew & Young, 2012). H3: Looking at the SNL condition, the salience of SNL-related items will be stronger after exposure to Feys impersonation on SNL (Ersalew & Young, 2012). To test H3, they ran paired-samples T-test to compare the SNL indexes between the pre- and post- tests among participants in the SNL condition (Ersalew & Young, 2012). In the study, researchers explored how caricatures might help viewers fill out perceptions of an unknown candidate, even though the controlled experiment could not definitively identify how Feys impersonations affected peoples opinions of Palin during the actual campaign itself (Ersalew & Young, 2012). In addition, the study showed significant effects months after this caricature had become a part of the political landscape. The results in a controlled study also suggested that the actual impact of these effects might have been even stronger during the election (Ersalew & Young, 2012). This also lends credence to the results that satirical talk shows use comedy to increase the popularity of important political issues.

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

12

Hoffman & Young (2011) state that recent research has demonstrated that these satirical talk shows have effects on normatively positive political outcomes like participation. Therefore, not only is the popularity of important political issues increasing, but political participation by every day citizens is increasing as well, according to researchers. While this effect seems like a positive outcome, scholars do not always agree about the harmful versus beneficial impact of political entertainment (Hoffman & Young, 2011) they simply agree on the increase in popularity of political issues and political participation. Political television has a prominent effect on the viewers understanding of politicians and the political situations that those politicians find themselves. A study conducted by Hoffman & Young (2011) proved that political information portrayed through different types of satirical talk shows affect the public in different ways. Viewers often make a distinction between hard news and soft news only. They group hard news in with informative news channels such as CNN or FOX News. Hard News channels intend to portray the facts and give a story without any additional theatrical elements. The other common news category is soft news which consists of late night comedy skits, and political satire. What most viewers do not understand is that certain forms of soft news do not have as much political efficacy as other sources of soft news. Efficacy will be a mediating mechanism between viewing (H1) political satire or parody and political participation, (H2) traditional television news and political participation, and (H3) late night comedy and political participation (Hoffman & Young 2011, p. 162). Hoffman & Young (2011) performed a political experiment that forms a correlation between the types of news people are exposed to and their political efficacy. Political efficacy is the belief in ones own competency and the feeling that political and social change is possible (Hoffman & Young, 2011, p. 161). The researchers used a 5- point

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

13

likert scale to gather data over series of questions answered by their participants. The questions determined how often the participants watched news, what kind of news they watched (hard or soft) and how does the news consumed affect their political efficacy. The results suggested, consuming satire or parody and traditional hard news affect political participation, at least in part through political efficacy (Hoffman & Young, 2011, p. 164). A study conducted by Lauren Feldman and Dannagal Goldthwaite Young examined the effects that viewing The Late Show, The Tonight Show, and The Daily show have on the level of attention paid to traditional news when information on presidential campaigns are aired. The researchers hypotheses were (H1) Viewers of The Tonight Show or The Late Show with will pay more attention to the campaign on television news than those who do not watch satirical talk shows. (H2) Viewers of The Daily Show will pay more attention to the campaign on satirical talk show than those who do not watch late-night comedy. (H1) Over time, the rate of increase in attention to the campaign on hard news will be greater for viewers of The Tonight Show or The Late Show than those who do not watch satirical talk shows. (H2) Over time, the rate of increase in attention to the campaign on hard news will be greater for viewers of The Daily Show than those who do not watch satirical talk shows (Feldman & Young, 2008, p. 407). In order to conduct the research the researchers did a series of telephone interviews. The researchers sample was conducted from a random sample of phone numbers gathered from The National Annenberg Election Survey (NAES). The logic of the NAES rolling cross-sectional design ensures that on a given night, the sample of numbers interviewed will be comparable to the sample interviewed on any other night (Feldman and Young, 2008, p. 407). The questions asked during the phone, interviews were used to determine how much late night television the participants watched and if they believe that their viewing has any effect on the way they view hard news sources. The

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

14

results of this study demonstrates that exposure to satirical talk shows is associated with higher levels of attention to the presidential campaign than traditional hard news (Feldman & Young, 2008, p. 416). This coincides with the agenda setting theory because the amounts of people that watch satirical talk shows also watch hard news sources. They are receiving information about a presidential campaign from both news sources. The results of the research prove that viewers of The Daily Show and of The Late Night Show and The Late Show are more inclined than nonlate-night viewers to pay attention to hard news at the outset of the primary campaign (Feldman and Young, 2008, p.416). Therefore, the results supported the researchers hypotheses that satirical talk shows affect viewers perceptions and the use of comedy increase popularity of political issues. Hypotheses H1: There is a correlation between satirical talk shows framing of a politician, and the way the audience perceives the politician. The independent variable for hypothesis one is the framing of a politician on satirical talk shows. The dependent variable is the viewers perceptions of a politician. The conceptual definition of framing is that satirical talk shows can portray politicians in a comical way and help shape a viewers perception of them. Research shows that framing consist of media effects, agenda setting and priming which are explored in the context of news programming and other forms of traditional political information through which scholars have examined political entertainment effect (Ersalew & Young, 2012) . The operational definition of framing in this study is to measure the effects of satirical talk shows impact on views perceptions of politician. The framing of political issues involving President Obama will be measured by measuring recall. Researchers will measure recall by asking Participants to recall if they have heard about

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

15

different political issues pertaining to the President, Obamacare or the fiscal shutdown of Government on satirical talk shows. Researchers will measure responses by using a likert scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree. The conceptual definition of viewers perceptions is shown in news coverage and how it can focus public attention on particular topics and in doing so, alter the mix of cognitions that are most readily accessible when forming political judgment (Shah, Watts, Domke & Fran, 2002). The operational definition of a viewers perception, and the way researchers will measure viewers perception is by asking questions such as On a scale of 1-5 Watching satirical talk show has changed my view of the President or Obamacare, the respondent will choose 1-5; 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree. H2: There is a correlation between the uses of comedy and the increase of interest in political issues The Independent variable is the use of comedy. The dependent variable is increased interest of political issues. The conceptual definition of the use of comedy in satirical talk shows is seen in Tina Feys impersonation of Sara Palin on Saturday Night Live (Ersalew & Young, 2010). The operational definition of the use of comedy will be measured by asking questions such as I find that the political issues/politicians are discussed in a humorous way on satirical talk shows (such as the Daily Show, The Colbert Report) and the respondent will choose 1-5 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree. The conceptual definition of the increase in interest of political issues is shown in previous research that has demonstrated that satirical talk shows have effects on normatively positive political outcomes like participation (Hoffman & Young 2011). The operational definition of the increase in interest of political issues will be measured by asking question such as watching satirical talk shows have increased my level of interest on a

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

16

politician or political issue. The respondent will then choose 1-5; 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree. RQ1: Do viewers prefer to hear soft news (i.e. The Daily Show, Colbert Report, or SNL) concerning political issues on satirical talk shows to hard news (i.e. CNN or Fox News)? The independent Variable is hard news or soft news. The dependent variable is viewers preference. The conceptual definition of Hard News or Soft News, according to Hoffman & Young, (2011) viewers often make a distinction between hard news and soft news only. They group hard news in with informative news channels such as CNN or FOX News. Hard News channels intend to portray the facts and give a story without any additional theatrical elements. The other common news category is soft news which consists of late night comedy skits, and political satire. The operational definition for hard news and soft news were measured by explicitly stating in the survey that CNN and Fox are categorized as hard news then asking the surveyors to mark their preference for hard news on scale of 1-5 with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree. The conceptual definitions of viewers preference of political news the way in which a viewer wishes to gain information on political topics. A 2004 Research survey showed that 25% of all Americans say they learn about politics from satirical talk shows (Gilkerson, 2010). The operational definition of viewers preference will be measured by the researchers listing the satirical talk shows and asking the viewers on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree, to rate their preference by answering questions like I prefer to watch CNN News for all my political updates or I prefer to watch The Daily Show for all my political updates. Methodology In order to test the two hypothesis and research question for this study, the researchers

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

17

administered a face-to-face survey using a non- probability sample. The survey was administered to a non-random selection of 100 Queens University of Charlotte students. The survey is considered a purposive sample since a volunteer based selection of undergraduate students was used. Survey subjects were required to read and sign a consent form stating their willingness to participate in the survey prior to completing the questionnaire. Researchers used a nonprobability sample due to the limitations of gathering data to support the research. The advantage of using a non-probability sample is that it is convenient, cost effective, and less time consuming. The disadvantage of using a non-probability sample is that we are not using a random sample therefore, not every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected, which may cause limited feedback. Researchers conducted a face-to-face study survey which required the researchers to be present while administering the survey as well as when the survey was being taken which allowed room for any questions to be answered by the researchers. Before the process took place, the participants signed a consent form that stated they were willing participants and that they were able to quit their participation in the survey at any time. The consent form also informed participants of the study and what variables the researchers will measure. Once the information was completed and the surveys had been collected, the researchers were able to measure each variable using a 5- point Likert scale to examine the participants responses. The data was then entered into SPSS where a paired sample t-test provided results on independent and dependent variables. Pilot Study The researchers conducted a pilot study prior to distributing the final questionnaires in order to increase the likelihood of success in the main study. After gathering the data from the

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

18

pilot study and asking the surveyors questions about the survey, researchers were able to make adjustments to the questionnaire that the subjects found confusing as well as giving the researchers insight on how to qualify the participants before administering the final survey. For the pilot study, the researchers surveyed six people in a face-to-face survey. The questionnaires were handed out to the surveyors and the researchers stayed close by in order to answer any questions the subjects had pertaining to the survey. The pilot study was helpful to the researchers; the subjects informed the researchers that they needed further explanation on what a satirical talk show is. This was evident when researchers picked up the surveys and reviewed the answers with the participants. A few of the subjects answered no, they had never heard about certain issues regarding a satirical talk show; then they answered that they had frequently heard about those issues on The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and SNL. One of the other surveyors marked yes they had heard about the issues and then marked that they did not remember hearing about any of the issues on The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and SNL. This helped the researchers explain the purpose of the survey, qualify the surveyors, and explain what satirical talk shows are before handing out the final survey. Findings The results of the research revealed the following for Hypothesis 1: There is a statistical significant difference using a paired sample t-test on SPSS between independent variables and dependent variables: hearing about Obamacare on a satirical talk show (i.e. The Daily Show, Colbert Report, & SNL) and watching satirical talk shows has changed my view of Obamacare. The mean for 100 students who had heard about Obamacare on The Daily Show is (M= 3.04, SD=1.22). The mean for 100 students who feel a satirical talk show changed their view of

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

19

Obamacare was (M= 2.65, SD=1.02) conditions; (t) =2.67, p=.009. The mean for those who heard about Obamacare on The Colbert Report was (M= 3.01, SD=1.22). The mean for those whose view about Obamacare changed after a satirical talk show was (M= 2.65, SD=1.03) conditions; (t) =2.43, p= .017. The mean for students who heard about Obamacare on SNL was (M= 3.25, SD=1.33). The mean of students whose view about Obamacare changed after a satirical talk show was (M= 2.65, SD=1.03) conditions; (t) = 3.72, p=.000. The results of the research revealed for Hypothesis 2. There is a statistical significant difference using a paired sample t-test on SPSS between independent variables and dependent variables: satirical talk shows are entertaining and informative and satirical talk show gives correct and accurate information on political issues. The mean for 100 who feel satirical talk shows are informative (M=3.64, SD=.916). The mean for 100 students who feel satirical talk shows give correct and accurate information (M=3.07, SD= .913) conditions; (t) = 4.96, p= .000. The results of the research revealed for Research Question 1. There is a statistical significant difference using a paired sample t-test on SPSS between independent variables and dependent variables: I prefer to watch CNN for Political Updates and I prefer to watch satirical talk shows for political updates. The mean for 100 students who prefer to watch CNN (M=2.71, SD= 1.09). The mean for 100 students who prefer to watch satirical talk show (M=3.13, SD = .929) conditions; (t) = -2.91, p= .004. Discussion In these last few months, there has been a profuse amount of critical news coverage surrounding President Barak Obama and the Obamacare Act. This study investigated the connections between framing analysis, agenda setting, and priming used by satirical talk shows. The researchers explored how these types of shows contend for resonance with members of the

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

20

public by organizing complex news topics around satire and cynicism. Public figures are regularly broadcasted on satirical talk shows in a humorous or satirical way. These shows make light of the speeches politicians deliver or the agendas they set. If a political figure delivers a speech poorly, the media will present it so the viewers can see their imperfections in a comedic or satirical way. The researchers of this study conducted a survey to measure the effects of satiricalframing and agenda setting on politicians. The researchers asked 100 Queens University of Charlotte students a series of questions, asking them to elaborate on which satirical talk shows they watch, and how often those talk shows address important government issues. Upon gathering the information and compiling the data, researchers revealed that the students of Queens University prefer satirical talk shows as opposed to hard news. Researchers also found that the students feel more informed after watching satirical talk shows. This is interesting because the issues addressed on satirical talk shows are not always pertinent to what is happening in the government. Satirical talk show producers watch several different forms of hard news sources and then choose the clips and subjects for their show. The producers of satirical talk shows are looking for content that can be easily turned into good political satire, not for the most important issues discussed in the news. Limitations The researchers would have preferred to have asked more questions measuring perceptions of a political figure as opposed to what surveyors had heard on satirical talk shows. One area that would have provided a different insight into the results would have been asking the students surveyed what year they were in so measurements could have been taken whether or not juniors and seniors shared the same sentiments as freshman and sophomores when it comes to

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

21

news preferences. In addition to adding more demographical questions, the researchers felt they would have had a better understanding on what satirical shows had the most impact on their political views if they had separated the shows in to categories. For instance, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report could have been in one category and Saturday Night Live could have been in a different category. Recommendations The researchers offer the following recommendations to other researchers who may be interested in this field of study: More demographical type questions included in the survey may help to gain insight on why young adults prefer satirical talk shows for political updates as oppose to hard news like CNN or Fox. It may be insightful if more questions were asked regarding perceptions (i.e. Do you like this politician? How do you feel about certain issues this politician is trying to pass?). Conclusion Since the younger population has become more interested in satirical talk show than the traditional hard new for their political updates, politics could go in an interesting and unpredictable direction in the future. This may be worth investigating particularly because satirical talk shows seem to have a significant impact on the way young adults view political issues and politicians. Future investigation and research may also be helpful for those considering a run for political positions in the future.

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

22

References Bayam, G. (2013). Political Media as Discursive Modes: A Comparative Analysis of Interviews With Ron Paul from Meet the Press, Tonight, The Daily Show, and Hannity. International Journal of Communication, Vol. 7, 489-507 Becker, A., B., Xenos, M., A., & Waisanen, D., J. (2010). Sizing up the Daily Show: Audience Perceptions of Political Comedy Programing, Atlantic Journal of Communication, Vol. 18, 144-157 Brewer, P., Marquardt, E. (2007). Mock News and Democracy: Analyzing the Daily Show, Atlantic Journal of Communication, Vol. 15(4), 249-267 Dahmen, N.S. (2010). Construction of the Truth and Destruction of a Million little Pieces. Communication of Journalism Studies, 11(1), 115-130. Ersalew, S. & Young, D. G. (2012). The Influence of Parodies on Mental Models: Exploring the Tina Fey Sarah Palin Phenomenon. Communication Quarterly, 60(3), 338-352 Feldman, L., & Young, D. (2008). Late-Night Comedy as a Gateway to Traditional News: An Analysis of Time Trends in News Attention among Late-Night Comedy Viewers during the 2004 Presidential Primaries. Political Communication, 25(4), 401-422 Gilkerson, N. (2010). Presidential Candidate Framing and Participation in Late-Night Comedy: The political Punditry of Television Humor Writers. Conference PapersInternational Communication Association, p. 1-30 Graber, D.A., (1993) Mass Media and American Politics 4th edition, Washington, D.C Congressional Quarterly Inc. Griffin, Em. (2011). A first look at communication. (8th Edition). Boston, MA. McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

23

Guo, L., Vu, H. T. & McCombs, M. (2012). An Expanded Perspective on Agenda-Setting Effects. Exploring the third level of agenda setting. Communication & Mass Media Complete, 11(1), 51-68 Hoffman, L.H., & Young, D.G. (2011). Satire, Punch Lines, and the Nightly News: Untangling Media Effects on Political Participation. Communication Research Reports, 28(2), 159-168 Kernochan, R. (2004). Framing and Framing Theory. Sept 9, 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.csun.edu/~rk33883/Framing%20Theory%20Lecture%20Ubertopic.htm Kent, K. & Davis, D. (2006) Framing Theory and Research: Implications for the Practice of Journalism. International Communication Association. Annual Meeting, p. 1-27, 27p. Littlejohn, S.W., Ross, K. A. (2011). Theories of Human Communication 10th edition. Long Grove: Waveland Press, Inc. Meeds, R., Al-Emadi, D. A., & Diop, A. (2013). Trusted News Sources Measures and their Relationships to Social and Public Attitudes: An Analysis of the First Annual Omnibus Survey of Life in Qatar. Journal of Middle East Media, 9(1), p. 1-23 Scheufele, D. (1999). Framing as a Theory of Media Effects. International Communication Association, 49(1),103-118 Shah, D.V., Watts, M.D., Domke, D., & Fan, D.P. (2002). News Faming and Cuing of Issue Regimes Explaining Clintons Public Approval in Spite of Sandal. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66(3), 339-37. Schutz, A. (1997). Self-presentational Tactic of Talk-Show Guest: A Comparison of politicians, Experts, and entertainers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(21), 1941-1952

FRAMING ANALYSIS ALONG WITH AGENDA SETTING

24

Theories of Communication. Zeepedia. Sept.09, 2013. Retrieved from. http://www.zeepedia.com/read.php?framing_spiral_of_silence_spiral_of_silence_assessi ng_public_opinion_theories_of_communication&b=81&c=34 Wimmer, R.D. & Dominick, J.R. (2011). Mass Media Research an Introduction 9th Edition. Boston, MA, Wadsworth, Cengage Learning