ADVERTISING AGE reports today on an upcoming study by Julia R. Fox at Indiana University called "No Joke: A Comparison of Substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Broadcast Network Television Coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign."
Fearing the hip masses would remain disenfranchised from the political system because they're getting all their news from THE DAILY SHOW, the study did side-by-side comparisons between humor and real news shows and, guess what, found them to be practically equivalent in their presentation of substantial news items.
"Interestingly, the average amounts of [what the report called non-hype] video and audio substance in the broadcast network news stories were not significantly different than the average amounts of visual and audio substance in 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart' stories about the presidential election," the study found. "It should be noted that the broadcast-network-news stories about the presidential election were significantly shorter, on average, than were 'The Daily Show with Jon Stewart' stories," Ms. Fox added. "The argument could be made that while the amount of substance per story was not significantly different, the proportion of each story devoted to substance was greater in the network-news stories. ... On the other hand, the proportion of stories per half-hour program devoted to the election campaign was greater in 'The Daily Show.'"
Its interesting, Anne, but hardly surprising.
In 2003 a study was conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes as to the value of the information and nature of the opinions/knowledge that Average American News Consumer had concerning the major issues surrounding the War On Terror, The 9/11 attacks, and the misinformation that trumped up the necessity of the Iraq Invasion. The study was well covered in academic journals and varied news aggregates, not only for the alarming levels of misunderstanding held by citizens who self-described themselves as following politics/the issues, but also for the alarming rate at which the news outlets themselves got it wrong.
But again, none of this is all that surprising to anyone who has followed the downsizing of news bureaus (including prestigious foreign desks), the consolation of corporate power enabled by The Federal Telecommunications Act, as well as the growth of the talking head pundit/opinion ranter high ratings infotainment scheme.
Not to imply its not interesting or anything. Just that, well, it is just one of those OF COURSE! moments, you know?