This study explores how exposure to news parody commentary and perceived news media importance (PNMI) can influence trust in the press. A two-wave experiment (N = 331) exposed participants to news parody stimuli, measuring different facets of media trust and PNMI 1 week before and immediately after the parody exposure. Results demonstrate mediated processes of influence, wherein parody’s implicit commentary about the press (compared to explicit, negative criticism of the news media) promotes greater PNMI, which in turn fosters increased trust in the press. This research ultimately highlights how news parody’s flattering imitations can enhance perceptions of the news media.
ArbuckleJ. L. (2011). AMOS 20 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS.
3.
BakhtinM. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (HolquistM., Ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
4.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
5.
BaumgartnerJ.MorrisJ. S. (2006). The Daily Show effect: Candidate evaluations, efficacy, and American youth. American Politics Research, 34, 341-367. doi:10.1177/1532673X05280074
6.
BaymG. (2005). The Daily Show: Discursive integration and the reinvention of political journalism. Political Communication, 22, 259-276. doi:10.1080/10584600591006492
7.
BaymG.JonesJ. P. (2012). News parody in global perspective: Politics, power, and resistance. Popular Communication, 10, 2-13. doi:10.1080/15405702.2012.638566
8.
BentlerP. M. (1992). On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the. Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 400-404.
9.
BordenS. L.TewC. (2007). The role of journalist and the performance of journalism: Ethical lessons from “fake” news (seriously). Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22, 300-314. doi:10.1080/08900520701583586
10.
BrewerP. R.MarquardtE. (2007). Mock news and democracy: Analyzing The Daily Show. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 15, 249-267. doi:10.1080/15456870701465315
11.
BrewerP. R.YoungD. G.JonesP. E. (2013). Campaign news genres, audience characteristics, and media perceptions: A field experiment. Electronic News, 7, 189-203. doi:10.1177/1931243113517698
12.
CappellaJ. N.JamiesonK. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
13.
DanillerA.AllenD.TalleviA.MutzD. C. (2017). Measuring trust in the press in a changing media environment. Communication Methods and Measures, 11, 76-85. doi:10.1080/19312458.2016.1271113
14.
DayA.ThompsonE. (2012). Live from New York, it’s fake news! Saturday night live and the (non)politics of parody. Popular Communication, 10, 170-182.
15.
DeuzeM. (2005). What is journalism? Professional identity and ideology of journalists reconsidered. Journalism, 6, 442-464. doi:10.1177/1464884905056815
16.
DomkeD.WattsM. D.ShahD. V.FanD. P. (1999). The politics of conservative elites and the “liberal media” argument. Journal of Communication, 49, 35-58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02816.x
17.
DruickZ. (2009). Dialogic absurdity: TV news parody as a critique of genre. Television & New Media, 10, 294-308.
18.
EkströmM. (2002). Epistemologies of TV journalism: A theoretical framework. Journalism, 3, 259-282. doi:10.1177/146488490200300301
19.
FarhiP. (2016, September23). Dear readers: Please stop calling us “the media.” There is no such thing. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://wpo.st/k3G82
20.
FineB. J. (1957). Conclusion-drawing, communicator credibility, and anxiety as factors in opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54, 369-374.
21.
GazianoC.McGrathK. (1986). Measuring the concept of credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 63, 451-462.
22.
GrayJ. (2005). Television teaching: Parody, The Simpsons, and media literacy education. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 22, 223-238. doi:10.1080/07393180500201652
23.
GuntherA. C. (1992). Biased press or biased public? Attitudes toward media coverage of social groups. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 147-167.
24.
HartR. P.HarteliusE. J. (2007). The political sins of Jon Stewart. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24, 263-272. doi:10.1080/07393180701520991
25.
HayesA. F.PreacherK. J.MyersT. A. (2011). Mediation and the estimation of indirect effects in political communication research. In BucyE. P.HolbertR. L. (Eds.), Sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (pp. 434-465). New York, NY: Routledge.
26.
HodgesB. H. (1974). Effect of valence on relative weighting in impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 378-381.
27.
HolbertR. L. (2005). Intramedia mediation: The cumulative and complementary effects of news media use. Political Communication, 22, 447-461. doi:10.1080/10584600500311378
28.
HolbertR. L.LambeJ.DudoA. D.CarltonK. A. (2007). Primacy effects of The Daily Show and national TV news viewing: Young viewers, political gratifications, and internal political self-efficacy. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51, 20-38. doi:10.1080/08838150701308002
29.
HolbertR. L.StephensonM. T. (2002). Structural equation modeling in the communication sciences, 1995-2000. Human Communication Research, 28, 531-551. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00822.x
30.
HolbertR. L.StephensonM. T. (2003). The importance of indirect effects in media effects research: Testing for mediation in structural equation modeling. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47, 556-572. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4704_5
31.
HovlandC. I.MandellW. (1952). An experimental comparison of conclusion-drawing by the communicator and by the audience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 581-588.
32.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
33.
JonesJ. P. (2010). Entertaining politics: Satiric television and political engagement (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
34.
KohringM.MatthesJ. (2007). Trust in news media: Development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Communication Research, 34, 231-252. doi:10.1177/0093650206298071
35.
KosickiG. M.McLeodJ. M. (1990). Learning from political news: Effects of media images and information processing strategies. In KrausS. (Ed.), Mass communication and political information processing (pp. 69-83). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36.
KrosnickJ. A. (1988). The role of attitude importance in social evaluation: A study of policy preferences, presidential candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 196-210. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.2.196
37.
LeeT. (2005). The liberal media myth revisited: An examination of factors influencing perceptions of media bias. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49, 43-64.
38.
LichterS. R.BaumgartnerJ. C.MorrisJ. S. (2015). Politics is a joke! How TV comedians are remaking political life. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
39.
LittauJ.StewartD. R. (2015). “Truthiness” and second-level agenda setting: Satire news and its influence on perceptions of television news credibility. Electronic News, 9, 122-136. doi:10.1177/1931243115581416
40.
McDonaldR. P.HoM.-H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64-82. doi:10.1037//1082-989X.7.1.64
41.
McLeodD. M.KosickiG. M.McLeodJ. M. (2009). Political communication effects. In BryantJ.OliverM. B. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 228-251). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42.
MeyerB. P. (1988). Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers: Developing an index. Journalism Quarterly, 65, 567-588.
43.
MeyerJ. C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in communication. Communication Theory, 10, 310-331.
44.
MorrisJ. S.BaumgartnerJ. C. (2008). The Daily Show and attitudes toward the news media. In BaumgartnerJ. C.MorrisJ. S. (Eds.), Laughing matters: Humor and American politics in the media age (pp. 315-331). New York, NY: Routledge.
45.
MorsonG. S. (1989). Parody, history, metaparody. In MorsonG. S.EmersonC. (Eds.), Rethinking Bakhtin: Extensions and challenges (pp. 63-86). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
MuthenL. K.MuthenB. O. (2012). Mplus users’ guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
48.
NabiR. L.Moyer-GuséE.ByrneS. (2007). All joking aside: A serious investigation into the persuasive effect of funny social issue messages. Communication Monographs, 74, 29-54. doi:10.1080/03637750701196896
49.
PainterC.HodgesL. (2010). Mocking the news: How The Daily Show with Jon Stewart holds traditional broadcast news accountable. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 25, 257-274. doi:10.1080/08900523.2010.512824
50.
PetersC. (2013). “Even better than being informed”: Satirical news and media literacy. In PetersC.BroersmaM. J. (Eds.), Rethinking journalism: Trust and participation in a transformed news landscape (pp. 173-188). New York, NY: Routledge.
51.
Pew Research Center. (2008). Journalism, satire, or just laughs? “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart,” examined. Retrieved from http://pewrsr.ch/17sRqOx
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731. doi:10.3758/bf03206553
54.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
55.
RiewaldJ. G. (1966). Parody as criticism. Neophilologus, 50, 125-148.
56.
RozinP.RoyzmanE. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296-320. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2
57.
SchudsonM. (2008). Why democracies need an unlovable press. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
58.
SherifC. W.SherifM.NebergallR. E. (1965). Attitude and attitude Change: The social judgment-involvement approach. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders.
59.
SkowronskiJ. J.CarlstonD. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 131-142. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.131
60.
SteinbergE.FoxJ. (2014, August). News you can’t use: A content analysis of the Daily Show’s media criticism. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Annual Conference, Montreal, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.aejmc.org/home/2014/06/pcig-2014-abstracts/
ThistlethwaiteD. L.De HaanH.KamenetzkyJ. (1955). The effects of directive and nondirective communication procedures on attitudes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 51, 107-113. doi:10.1037/h0043968
63.
TsfatiY.ArielyG. (2014). Individual and contextual correlates of trust in media across 44 countries. Communication Research, 41, 760-782. doi:10.1177/0093650213485972
64.
TuchmanG. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York, NY: The Free Press.
65.
ValloneR. P.RossL.LepperM. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577-585.
66.
VanackerB.BelmasG. (2009). Trust and the economics of news. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 24, 110-126. doi:10.1080/08900520902885277
67.
WeaverD. H.BeamR. A.BrownleeB. J.VoakesP. S.WilhoitG. C. (2007). The American journalist in the 21st century: U.S. news people at the dawn of a new millennium. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
68.
WellsG. L.WindschitlP. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1115-1125.
69.
WiseD.BrewerP. R. (2010). News about news in a presidential primary campaign: Press metacoverage on evening news, political talk, and political comedy programs. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 18, 127-143. doi:10.1080/15456871003742070
70.
YoungD. G. (2008). The Daily Show as the new journalism: In their own words. In BaumgartnerJ. C.MorrisJ. S. (Eds.), Laughing matters: Humor and American politics in the media age (pp. 241-259). New York, NY: Routledge.
71.
YuanK.-H. (2005). Fit indices versus test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 115-148.
