In today’s society it can be challenging to turn on the news and read about the various tragedies affecting the world. Because of this, many people have turned to late night shows as their source of information on politics. What’s unique about these shows is the issue being presented can be shaped however the host views it; he or she is under no obligation to present a set of facts to the audience, instead their obligation is to make the audience laugh. The way current events are presented on late night shows is geared towards keeping the audience entertained; however the latent function of these shows is their effect on people’s political knowledge and perspectives. By drawing in the audience with comedy the host is able to capture the attention of the viewers unlike typical news sources. This ability to hold the audience’s attention is what allows late night shows to effectively educate their viewers about politics; similarly, this attention gives late night shows the ability to influence the political views of the audience. 

The typically young audience of late night TV is one of the most sought after group of potential voters for political candidates. Therefore, candidates often appear on the shows hoping to draw the attention of young viewers. The audience of late night shows tend to be younger and male, with higher levels of political interest (Sarver 21). This level of political interest attracts the audience to the politically geared jokes of late night TV and gives them an opportunity to not only hear political news but also understand it enough to understand the jokes. Therefore, viewers of late night TV must be somewhat politically well informed. This is supported by a study conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found viewers of The Daily Show were the most politically well informed news consumers in America (Fox news viewers were the least informed) (McClennen & Maisel 11). Furthermore, Jon Macks, a democratic campaign consultant compares late night TV to a “thermometer” and “thermostat (Morella). This analogy represents the ability for late night TV to assess the views of its audience and well as alter their perspectives. This altering of perspectives is especially distinct in candidate appearances or spoofs of late night TV, which have been shown to dramatically effect approval ratings.

Recently late night TV has served as a replacement for typical news sources. As Americans have lost confidence in more common news sources, they have become more reliant on the information from late night TV. In “Is Satire Saving Our Nation”, authors Sophia McClennen and Remy Maisel argue that political satire has undergone a dramatic change, “in the past, satire mocked news sources the public had already consumed. Today satire is often the only source of news the public consumes” (7). Late night TV has also replaced the news as a source for people to understand politics because political satire is able to act as a source of entertainment and news. While many have argued that late night TV is the “dumbing down” of politics, McClennen and Maisel note that it requires viewers to interpret the satire instead of simply getting the information in a typical manner. Late night TV has also been known to increase campaign knowledge of viewers, especially with the appearance of a candidate on the show. This is especially prevalent in younger viewers; this is thought to be because young people tend to believe they tuned into the program to increase their political knowledge, “Or to put it another way, late night television viewing increases what young people think they know about a political campaign but provides at best moderate improvements to actual recall of events associated with the campaign” (Saver 25). Furthermore, the popularity of political humor increases the receptiveness of the message, which could play a role in how viewer’s political views can be influenced by late night TV. Political scientists Robert Lichter, Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan Morris state that “when a politician has problems, the news media knock him off his feet, and then the comedians come along and kick him while he's down. It's kind of a selective echo”. This “selective echo” is seen through spoofs such as Tina Fey’s impersonation of Sarah Palin on SNL and Kate McKinnon’s impersonation of Hilary Clinton. 

The way in which the audience’s perspective is influenced depends on the way in which the political figure is portrayed. Often times late night TV, such as SNL, do spoofs of popular political figures. The mockery of these political figures has been known to decrease approval ratings, most popularly seen in Tina Fey’s impersonation of Sarah Palin on SNL during the 2008 presidential election. This impersonation is particularly popular because it not only influenced the public’s perception of Palin, but also her running mate John McCain (Walth, Baumgartner & Morris). In fact, individuals who saw the SNL skit had an 8.5% probability of approving McCain’s choice of Palin, and a 75.7% probability of disapproving of this choice (Walth, Baumgartner & Morris). More recently, Chris Matthew’s discusses how Clinton and Trump were portrayed on SNL; Matthew’s notes that Kate McKinnon was able to highlight Clintons “desperate and neediness” and Trump’s signature pout. He also mentioned Tina Fey’s portrayal of Sarah Palin on SNL and applauded Fey’s ability to play on how Sarah Palin “actually took herself seriously”. In conclusion, there is a significant relationship between the amount of jokes about a candidate and the rise and fall of their favorability; the more jokes presented about a political figure, the more people lose respect of the candidacy. 

However, late night TV has also been known to positively affect people’s perceptions of political figures. This was most popularly seen in the 2008 and 2012 presidential election. Robert Litcher, a professor at George Mason University who has studied late-night humor and politics says that “Late-night humor has become a part of campaign discourse” (Morella). Obama is known to have taken advantage of the growing popularity of late night TV by becoming the first sitting president to appear on a late night program (Morella). This gave him an opportunity for viewers to see him in a more personal, lighthearted setting and increase his popularity. Furthermore, the “Colbert Bump” refers to the growth in popularity for anyone who appears on his program such as Mike Huckabee whose polling increased 300% after appearing on The Colbert Report (McClennen & Maisel 11). The dramatic increase in favorability ratings after appearing on late night shows highlights the ability for candidates or figures to escape an uptight image and appear more personable. Furthermore, candidate appearances on late night TV have been shown cause young viewers to be more “issue-oriented than image-conscious in their political decisions” (Parkin 1). The casual context of late night TV increases young people’s receptiveness and encourages them to consider the policies/morals of the candidate. More issue-oriented voters could have a positive effect on democratic representation by allowing the perspectives of the candidate to be highlighted instead of more superficial aspects.

The “limited effects theory” argues that the media has minimal effects on the public’s opinions because people tend to watch programs that are in agreement with their beliefs. However, the “priming effect”, referenced in many texts, provides evidence that people’s political views, specifically their evaluations of candidates, are effected by late night TV. This theory states that ‘‘the media draw attention to some aspects of political life at the expense of others’’ (Baumgartner, Morris & Walth). Political satire, such as spoofs, are a form of negative priming and therefore is associated with a more negative perception of the target (political candidates or figures) (Baumgartner, Morris & Walth). This is present through the “Fey effect” discussed earlier in which Sarah Palins favorability ratings decreased significantly after Tina Fey’s impersonation of her. In agreement with the limited effects theory, democratic favorability ratings remained constant after Fey’s SNL skit, as their favorability ratings of Palin were already low (Baumgartner, Morris & Walth). However, contradicting the limited effects theory, there was a significant decrease in Palin’s favorability ratings from republicans and independents (Baumgartner, Morris & Walth). This reveals that late night TV reaches a wide audience, and therefore has the ability to influence viewers with differing political views. The priming effect is also referenced by Sarver, who states that the priming effect tends to be stronger for lesser known candidates, possibly because the audience has less previous knowledge to refute negative statements made about less popular figures (23). Lastly, the priming effect is also seen in the 2000 presidential election, in which Bush’s appearance on The Late Show increased his favorability ratings. 

Through research on the priming effect, political knowledge, the effect of candidates appearances and overall political perspectives, it can be concluded that growing popularity of late night TV has a significant influence on viewers. Through this research, the power of comedy to appeal to a wide audience is revealed, especially through instances such as the 2008 election when Tina Fey’s impersonation of Sarah Palin had to ability to influence the views of republicans and independents. In comparison the typical news sources, the ability for late night TV to capture its audience, keep them entertained and simultaneously educate and influence them is incredibly impressive. Furthermore, the contrast between the comedy used to capture the audience and the logical argument made by the host highlights the fact that comedy can be used as a means of influence in the political world.

.  