Jonathan S. Morris

The Daily Show Effect Candidate Evaluations, Efficacy, and American Youth

We test the effects of a popular televised source of political humor for young Americans: The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. We find that participants exposed to jokes about George W. Bush and John Kerry on The Daily Show tended to rate both candidates more negatively, even when controlling for partisanship and other demographic variables. Moreover, we find that viewers exhibit more cynicism toward the electoral system and the news media at large. Despite these negative reactions, viewers of The Daily Show reported increased confidence in their ability to understand the complicated world of politics. Our findings are significant in the burgeoning field of research on the effects of “soft news” on the American public. Although research indicates that soft news contributes to democratic citizenship in America by reaching out to the inattentive public, our findings indicate that The Daily Show may have more detrimental effects, driving down support for political institutions and leaders among those already inclined toward nonparticipation.

MyFaceTube Politics

This article examines the political uses of social networking (SN) Web sites by young adults in context of the early stages of the 2008 presidential primary season. Using a survey of over 3,500 18- to 24-year-olds contacted immediately prior to the Iowa caucuses, we illustrate that although SN Web sites are recognized by youth as a possible source of news and that many receive some of their news from these sites, the types of news gathered probably do little to inform them or add to democratic discourse. Moreover, the study shows that in spite of the promise SN sites hold for increasing political interest and participation among a chronically disengaged cohort, users are no more inclined to participate in politics than are users of other media.

A Clash of Civilizations? The Influence of Religion on Public Opinion of U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East

The authors argue in this study that religious beliefs play a significant role in predicting American public opinion on foreign policy issues in the Middle East. Their findings reveal that Evangelical Christians have remained strong supporters of a hawkish foreign policy toward the Middle East, even as overall public support for the Iraq War declines. They also find that Evangelicals are among the strongest supporters of Israel and hold more negative views of Islam than others. These results reinforce the growing importance of the “faith factor” in public opinion and American politics as a whole.

The Fox News Factor

This aricle analyzes data from the Pew Research Center’s 1998 to 2004 Biennial Media Consumption Surveys to identify demographic and behavioral factors that predict Americans’ exposure to cable and broadcast nightly news. While many predictors are significant across sources, much of the evidence indicates the audiences are unique. The network news audience is becoming increasingly older, and the Fox News and CNN audiences are becoming increasingly polarized. Compared to the CNN audience, Fox News watchers are less likely to follow stories that are critical of the Bush administration but more likely to follow entertainment-based news stories. The findings also suggest that Fox News watchers enjoy news that shares their personal views, while the CNN and network news audiences prefer news that has more in-depth interviews with public officials. Finally, evidence suggests that the Fox News watchers were more likely than nonwatchers to underestimate rather than overestimate, the number of American casualties in Iraq.

High-Conflict Television News and Public Opinion

This research assesses whether conflict-laden news coverage affects public perceptions of political institutions and political elites in general. Particularly, is conflict-oriented television news coverage of politics contributing to negative evaluations of political institutions and their leaders? We present evidence from an experiment designed to address this question. Our experiment is constructed around media coverage of the State of the Union Address. We control for the source of news (CNN), and examine how CNN’s Crossfire and Inside Politics’ coverage and analyses of the State of the Union Address influenced the attitudes and perceptions of viewers. We find that conflict-laden television coverage decreases public evaluations of political institutions, trust in leadership, and overall support for political parties and the system as a whole. Our findings have implications for public opinion in an era of increased abundance of high-conflict cable news talk shows that turn the political process into a contact sport.

Cable News, Public Opinion, and the 2004 Party Conventions

In this study, the authors test for the presence of bias during Fox News and CNN’s coverage of the 2004 national party conventions. The content analysis demonstrates that Fox News’s coverage was more favorable to the Republican Party than it was to the Democratic Party, while CNN’s coverage was more impartial. The authors also use panel data from the National Annenberg Election Survey to show how opinion change toward the 2004 presidential candidates was associated with exposure to cable television coverage of the national party conventions. These findings highlight the evolving role of the cable news media in presidential campaigns and elections.

Digital Inequality and Participation in the Political Process: Real or Imagined?

This study analyzes whether greater levels of Internet access closed the participation gap between individuals of lower and higher socioeconomic status (SES) in the early stages of the 2012 presidential campaign. Our analysis of data from the Pew Research Center demonstrates that greater levels of access to the Internet are significantly associated with greater political knowledge and engagement for low SES individuals, but not high SES individuals. We explain our results in the context of incidental learning among the disengaged public during high-profile political events, such as a presidential election.

News Grazers, Television News, Political Knowledge, and Engagement

This study examines the modern-day television “news grazer” in American politics. We define news grazers as those individuals who watch television news with remote control in hand and switch to another channel when an uninteresting topic comes up. Using survey data from the Pew Research Center, we find that news grazers differ significantly from nongrazers in news-gathering habits, political knowledge, and behavior. These effects remain significant even when controlling for other factors associated with news-grazing frequency, such as age and gender. The implications for the present and future of democratic political engagement are discussed.

Media Coverage of Congress in the 1990s: Scandals, Personalities, and the Prevalence of Policy and Process

In this article, we provide a comprehensive, systematic examination of media coverage of Congress in the 1990s. Specifically, we content analyze over 2,600 congressional news stories from the New York Times and CBS Evening News from 1990 through 1998. We find that the news media covered substantive policy concerns and the legislative process quite regularly and that stories focusing on individual personalities and political scandals were comparatively infrequent. We also find that legislative maneuvering is a mainstay of congressional media coverage, and the democratic process is most often framed as conflict between parties and Congress and the president.

Jon Stewart Comes to Class: The Learning Effects of America (The Book) in Introduction to American Government Courses

This project posits that incorporating political humor into the classroom can have a positive effect on learning in higher education. Specifically, we present preliminary findings from a quasi-experiment in which a humorous, “mock” textbook titled America (The Book) (Stewart, Karlin, and Javerbaum 2004) was incorporated into Introduction to American Government curricula in conjunction with a standard textbook. Our hypothesis argues that humorous presentations of politics and government can enhance the learning process and increase test scores by way of Matthew Baums (2003a) “gateway” or “incidental by-product” effects. Our empirical findings show no such learning effect. Our qualitative evidence, however, suggests that humor-based teaching is clearly more engaging and interesting for the students.