COMEDY and SCIENCE ATTENTIVENESS the Impact Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Running Head: COMEDY AND SCIENCE ATTENTIVENESS The Impact of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report on Public Attentiveness to Science and the Environment Lauren Feldman American University Anthony Leiserowitz Yale University Edward Maibach George Mason University Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association Boston, May 2011 Comedy and Science Attentiveness 2 Abstract Prior research on the political effects of late-night comedy programs has demonstrated that by piggy-backing political content on entertainment fare, such programs provide a “gateway” to increased audience attention to news and public affairs, particularly among less politically engaged audiences. Given the heightened coverage of science and environmental topics on Comedy Central’s satirical news programs The Daily Show and The Colbert Report , this paper considers whether a similar process could be at work relative to public attention to science and the environment. An analysis of nationally representative survey data finds that audience exposure to The Daily Show and The Colbert Report goes hand-in-hand with attention paid to science and environmental issues, specifically global warming. Moreover, the relationship between satirical news use and attentiveness is most pronounced among those with the least amount of formal education, who might otherwise lack the resources and motivation to pay attention to scientific and environmental issues. In this way, satirical news is an attention equalizer, reducing traditional gaps in attentiveness between those with low and high levels of education. Comedy and Science Attentiveness 3 The Impact of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report on Public Attentiveness to Science and the Environment On April 8, 2010, Stephen Colbert devoted more than half of The Colbert Report’s 30- minute satirical news show to deriding President Obama’s plan to scale back NASA’s manned space program, first during a four-minute segment called “The Final Final Frontier” and then during a seven-minute interview with astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. In his interview with Colbert, Tyson argued that astronauts are vital not only to the science of space exploration but also as science’s celebrities, inspiring children to grow up and become scientists themselves. In a rare departure from his ironic, often confrontational interview style, Colbert appeared at a loss for words and then lamented “we’re going to lose…we’re going to lose that as Americans” (Colbert Report , April 8, 2010). A week later, when President Obama exhibited an apparent change of heart, re-affirming his commitment to human space exploration during an address at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, Colbert responded by triumphantly declaring “I saved the space program!” ( Colbert Report , April 15, 2010). While perhaps Stephen Colbert cannot fairly lay claim to saving NASA’s space program, there appear to be real public relations benefits conferred by his program. The “Colbert bump” is a term coined by Colbert to refer to the boost in popularity that guests – political candidates, in particular – achieve by appearing on his show. Lending credibility to the “Colbert bump,” Fowler (2008) found that Democratic congressional candidates who appeared on The Colbert Report’s “Better Know a District” segment in fact went on to significantly out-fundraise their peers who were similarly matched in terms of political party, incumbency, and prior donations but who had not appeared on the show. In late 2009, Colbert extended the “Colbert bump” to the U.S. speedskating team, signing on his fan club “ColbertNation” as the team’s sponsor when its Comedy and Science Attentiveness 4 prior sponsor, Dutch bank DSB, went bankrupt, leaving the team with a $300,000 budget deficit in the lead-up to the 2010 Winter Olympics. According to Sports Illustrated, more than $200,000 were raised in the first week after Colbert announced the sponsorship on his show and, with two months left to go until the Olympics, traffic on the United States Speedskating website had doubled and skaters were receiving unprecedented amounts of media attention (Bechtel & Cannella, 2009). Stephen Colbert himself, sporting full speedskating gear, appeared on the December 21, 2009 cover of Sports Illustrated beside the tagline “Stephen Colbert and his Nation Save the Olympics.” ! Could, then, The Colbert Report and its “fake news” predecessor The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, by shining a light on science and scientists, be providing them with a “bump” in terms of increased public attention and engagement? According to a recent USA Today article, Comedy Central – the home of The Colbert Report and The Daily Show – has become the place for science on television (Vergano, 2010). Indeed, Sean Carroll, a physicist who appeared on The Colbert Report in March 2010, was quoted as saying “Comedy Central is it, as far as science goes” (Vergano, 2010). It is perhaps no coincidence, then, that when Neil deGrasse Tyson was interviewed on The Colbert Report in April 2010, it was his seventh appearance on the show – the record for any guest (Vergano, 2010). The astrophysicist has also appeared on The Daily Show four times. An informal scan of past episodes of The Colbert Report and The Daily Show on Comedy Central’s website revealed that, between October 2005 and April 2010, the two shows have together hosted more than three dozen scientists, discussing everything from particle physics to evolution to global warming. Both shows have also featured public figures and advocates discussing science and environmental policy issues, including former Vice President Comedy and Science Attentiveness 5 Al Gore, who has become a major voice on the issue of climate change, and Ron Reagan, Jr., who has spoken out in support of stem cell research.! Moreover, The Daily Show’s and Colbert Report’s attention to science and the environment extends beyond their selection of interview guests. Both shows frequently include news segments dealing with such issues as global warming, energy, stem-cell research, astronomy, genetics, and evolution. For example, The Daily Show aired a week-long series on evolution in September 2005 (“Evolution Schmevolution”); The Colbert Report explored the science of genetics and DNA in an August 2007 episode; and in 2009, both programs covered news about the Large Hadron Collider, the world’s largest and highest-energy particle accelerator. More systematic evidence for the attention paid to science on Comedy Central comes from a content analysis conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism (2008), which found that, in 2007, The Daily Show devoted a greater percentage of its news hole to science/technology and environmental stories than did the mainstream news media. Global warming, specifically, received twice as much coverage on The Daily Show than it did in the mainstream press; in fact, in 2007, global warming ranked among the top five most-covered stories on The Daily Show . Thus, not only does The Daily Show appear to rival traditional news outlets in terms of the substance and quantity of its political coverage (Fox, Koloen, & Sahin, 2007), it also does so when it comes to issues of science, technology, and the environment. However, while the hybridization of comedy and politics and its implications for political engagement have been the subject of much recent scholarly inquiry, little – if any – systematic attention has been devoted to the science-comedy crossover that is also characteristic of The Colbert Report and The Daily Show . Prior research on the political effects of late-night comedy programs has demonstrated that by piggy-backing political content on entertainment fare, such Comedy and Science Attentiveness 6 programs provide a “gateway” to increased audience attention to news and public affairs (Baum, 2003; Cao, 2010; Feldman & Young, 2008). This paper considers whether a similar process could be at work relative to public attention to science and the environment. In addressing this question, we use nationally representative survey data to evaluate the relationship between watching The Daily Show and The Colbert Report and attention to science and environmental issues, specifically global warming. Findings suggest that just as exposure to late-night comedy correlates with increased audience attention to politics, so too does exposure to The Daily Show and The Colbert Report go hand-in-hand with attention paid to science and the environment. Before turning to a detailed explanation of these results, the paper first considers the challenge of science engagement in the U.S., and then offers a theoretical account of how satirical news programs could help to improve science engagement among their audiences. The Challenge of Science Engagement Science and technology pervade all aspects of American life. A basic understanding of science and technology informs our decision-making in the workplace, in the marketplace, in the doctor’s office, and at the dinner table. Without such an understanding, we would be ill-equipped to make a computer purchase, for example, or comprehend a medical diagnosis. Science literacy is also critical to our competency as citizens. Awareness of threats to public health and to the environment allows us to act in ways that benefit not only our personal but also our collective well-being. Moreover, the intensity of public engagement with scientific and technological issues impacts government funding and policymaking related to such topics as climate change, nanotechnology, and stem cell research. Despite the central role that science and technology play in the lives of American citizens, public engagement with science and technology is low, particularly relative to other Comedy and Science Attentiveness 7 issues. Although, in 2008, more than 80% of Americans reported that they are interested in new scientific discoveries, a figure that has remained relatively stable over the last decade (National Science Board, 2010), only 13% of Americans reported that they follow news about science and technology “very closely,” down from 22% a decade earlier (Pew Research Center, cited in National Science Board, 2010, Table 7-1).