UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (http://dare.uva.nl)

UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

Spicing up politics: how soft news and infotainment form political attitudes

Boukes, M.

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):Boukes, M. (2015). Spicing up politics: how soft news and infotainment form political attitudes.

General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s),other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, statingyour reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Askthe Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam,The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

Download date: 14 Sep 2020

107

References Aarøe, L. (2011). Investigating frame strength: The case of episodic and thematic

frames. Political Communication, 28(2), 207-226. doi:10.1080/10584609. 2011.568041

Aday, S. (2010). Chasing the bad news: An analysis of 2005 Iraq and Afghanistan war coverage on NBC and Fox News channel. Journal of Communication, 60(1), 144-164. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01472.x

Albæk, E., Van Dalen, A., Jebril, N., & de Vreese, C. (2014). Political journalism in comparative perspective. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press.

Albarracín, D., & Vargas, P. (2010). Attitudes and persuasion: From biology to social responses to persuasive intent. In S. T. Fiske, D. Gilbert T. & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, Volume 1 (5th ed., pp. 394-427). Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons.

Althaus, S. L. (2003). Collective preferences in democratic politics: Opinion surveys and the will of the people. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press.

Althaus, S. L. (2012). What’s good and bad in political communication research? Normative standards for evaluating media and citizen performance. In H. A. Semetko, & M. Scammell (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of political communication (pp. 97-112). Londen, United Kingdom: SAGE.

Anderson, B. (2004). News flash: Journalism, infotainment and the bottom-line business of broadcast news. San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass.

Arbuckle, J. L. (2010). IBM SPSS AMOS 19 user’s guide. Chicago (IL): Amos Development Corporation.

Arceneaux, K., Johnson, M., & Cryderman, J. (2013). Communication, persuasion, and the conditioning value of selective exposure: Like minds may unite and divide but they mostly tune out. Political Communication, 30(2), 213-231. doi:10.1080/10584609.2012.737424

Arceneaux, K., Johnson, M., & Murphy, C. (2012). Polarized political communication, oppositional media hostility, and selective exposure. The Journal of Politics, 74(01), 174-186. doi:10.1017/S002238161100123X

Arpan, L. M., & Nabi, R. L. (2011). Exploring anger in the hostile media process: Effects on news preferences and source evaluation. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 88(1), 5-22. doi:10.1177/107769901108800101

Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men (pp. 222-236). Pittsburgh (PA): Carnegie Press.

108

Aust, C. F., & Zillmann, D. (1996). Effects of victim exemplification in television news on viewer perception of social issues. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(4), 787-803. doi:10.1177/107769909607300403

Averill, J. R. (1982). Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. New York (NY): Springer-Verlag.

Baek, Y. M., & Wojcieszak, M. E. (2009). Don’t expect too much! Learning from late-night comedy and knowledge item difficulty. Communication Research, 36(6), 783-809. doi:10.1177/0093650209346805

Baker, C. E. (2002). Media, markets, and democracy. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press.

Banaji, M. R., & Heiphetz, L. (2010). Attitudes. In S. T. Fiske, D. Gilbert T. & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, Volume 1 (5th ed., pp. 353-393). Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons.

Barker, D. C., & Lawrence, A. B. (2006). Media favoritism and presidential nominations: Reviving the direct effects model. Political Communication, 23(1), 41-59. doi:10.1080/10584600500477013

Barnett, S. (1998). Dumbing down or reaching out: Is it tabloidisation wot done it? The Political Quarterly, 69(B), 75-90. doi:10.1111/1467-923X.00193

Barnhurst, K. G. (1998). Politics in the fine meshes: Young citizens, power and media. Media, Culture & Society, 20(2), 201-218. doi:10.1177/016344398020002003

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Baum, M. A. (2002). Sex, lies, and war: How soft news brings foreign policy to the inattentive public. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 91-110. doi:10.1017/S0003055402004252

Baum, M. A. (2003a). Soft news and political knowledge: Evidence of absence or absence of evidence? Political Communication, 20(2), 173-190. doi:10.1080/10584600390211181

Baum, M. A. (2003b). Soft news goes to war: Public opinion and American foreign policy in the new media age. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.

Baum, M. A. (2004). Circling the wagons: Soft news and isolationism in American public opinion. International Studies Quarterly, 48(2), 313-338. doi:10.1111/j.0020-8833.2004.00303.x

REFERENCES 109

Baum, M. A. (2005). Talking the vote: Why presidential candidates hit the talk show circuit. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 213-234. doi:10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.t01-1-00119.x

Baum, M. A., & Jamison, A. S. (2006). The Oprah effect: How soft news helps inattentive citizens vote consistently. Journal of Politics, 68(4), 946-959. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00480.x

Baumgartner, J., & Morris, J. S. (2006). The Daily Show effect: Candidate evaluations, efficacy, and American youth. American Politics Research, 34(3), 341-367. doi:10.1177/1532673X05280074

Baym, G. (2005). The Daily Show: Discursive integration and the reinvention of political journalism. Political Communication, 22(3), 259-276. doi:10.1080/10584600591006492

Baym, G. (2007). Crafting new communicative models in the televisual sphere: Political interviews on The Daily Show. The Communication Review, 10(2), 93-115. doi:10.1080/10714420701350379

Baym, G. (2010). From Cronkite to Colbert: The evolution of broadcast news. Boulder (CO): Paradigm Publishers.

Baym, G. (2013). Political media as discursive modes: A comparative analysis of interviews with Ron Paul from Meet The Press, Tonight, The Daily Show, and Hannity. International Journal of Communication, 7(Breaking Boundaries), 489-507. Retrieved from http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/ 1942/864

Baym, G., & Jones, J. P. (2012). News parody in global perspective: Politics, power, and resistance. Popular Communication, 10(1-2), 2-13. doi:10.1080/15405702.2012.638566

Baym, G., & Shah, C. (2011). Circulating struggle. Information, Communication & Society, 14(7), 1017-1038. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2011.554573

Becker, A. B. (2014). Humiliate my enemies or mock my friends? Applying disposition theory of humor to the study of political parody appreciation and attitudes toward candidates. Human Communication Research, 40(2), 137-160. doi:10.1111/hcre.12022

Becker, A. B., & Waisanen, D. J. (2013). From funny features to entertaining effects: Connecting approaches to communication research on political comedy. Review of Communication, 13(3), 161-183. doi:10.1080/15358593.2013.826816

110

Bennett, W. L. (2007). Relief in hard times: A defense of Jon Stewart’s comedy in an age of cynicism. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24(3), 278-283. doi:10.1080/07393180701521072

Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707-731. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x

Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2010). The shifting foundations of political communication: Responding to a defense of the media effects paradigm. Journal of Communication, 60(1), 35-39. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01471.x

Berelson, B. (1952). Democratic theory and public opinion. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 16(3), 313-330. doi:10.1086/266397

Berger, A. A. (1976). Anatomy of the joke. Journal of Communication, 26(3), 113-115. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01913.x

Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351-368. doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057

Betancourt, H. (1990). An attribution-empathy model of helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(3), 573-591. doi:10.1177/0146167290163015

Bird, S. E. (1998). News we can use: An audience perspective on the tabloidisation of news in the United States. Javnost-the Public, 5(3), 33-49. Retrieved from http://javnost-thepublic.org/article/1998/3/3/

Blanton, H., Strauts, E., & Perez, M. (2012). Partisan identification as a predictor of cortisol response to election news. Political Communication, 29(4), 447-460. doi:10.1080/10584609.2012.736239

Blumler, J. G., & Kavanagh, D. (1999). The third age of political communication: Influences and features. Political Communication, 16(3), 209-230. doi:10.1080/105846099198596

Boczkowski, P. J. (2009). Rethinking hard and soft news production: From common ground to divergent paths. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 98-116. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01406.x

Bolton, G. (2010). Testing models and internalizing context: A comment on “Theory and experiment: What are the questions?” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 73(1), 16-20. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2009.11.002

REFERENCES 111

Borden, S. L., & Tew, C. (2007). The role of journalist and the performance of journalism: Ethical lessons from “fake” news (seriously). Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22(4), 300-314. doi:10.1080/08900520701583586

Bosch, B. (2013). Beyond vox pop: The role of news sourcing and political beliefs in exemplification effects. Mass Communication and Society, 17(2), 217-235. doi:10.1080/15205436.2013.779718

Boukes, M., & Boomgaarden, H. G. (2014). Soft news with hard consequences? Introducing a nuanced measure of soft versus hard news exposure and its relationship with political cynicism. Communication Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650214537520

Brants, K. (1998). Who's afraid of infotainment? European Journal of Communication, 13(3), 315-335. doi:10.1177/0267323198013003002

Brants, K., & Neijens, P. (1998). The infotainment of politics. Political Communication, 15(2), 149-164. doi:10.1080/10584609809342363

Brants, K., & Van Praag, P. (2006). Signs of media logic: Half a century of political communication in the Netherlands. Javnost-the Public, 13(1), 25-40. Retrieved from http://www.javnost-thepublic.org/article/2006/1/2/

Brewer, P. R., Young, D. G., & Morreale, M. (2013). The impact of real news about “fake news”: Intertextual processes and political satire. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(3), 323-343. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edt015

Brosius, H., & Bathelt, A. (1994). The utility of exemplars in persuasive communications. Communication Research, 21(1), 48-78. doi:10.1177/009365094021001004

Buckingham, D. (1997). News media, political socialization and popular citizenship: Towards a new agenda. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 14(4), 344-366. doi:10.1080/15295039709367023

Bucy, E. P., & Tao, C. (2007). The mediated moderation model of interactivity. Media Psychology, 9(3), 647-672. doi:10.1080/15213260701283269

Bullock, J. G., Green, D. P., & Ha, S. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (Don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 550-558. doi:10.1037/a0018933

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago (IL): Rand McNally College.

Chaffee, S. H., & Schleuder, J. (1986). Measurement and effects of attention to media news. Human Communication Research, 13(1), 76-107. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00096.x

112

Chaffee, S. H., Zhao, X., & Leshner, G. (1994). Political knowledge and the campaign media of 1992. Communication Research, 21(3), 305-324. doi:10.1177/009365094021003004

Chang, C. (2001). The impacts of emotion elicited by print political advertising on candidate evaluation. Media Psychology, 3(2), 91-118. doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0302_01

Chia, S. C. (2006). How peers mediate media influence on adolescents? Sexual attitudes and sexual behavior. Journal of Communication, 56(3), 585-606. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00302.x

Choi, J., Yang, M., & Chang, J. J. (2009). Elaboration of the hostile media phenomenon: The roles of involvement, media skepticism, congruency of perceived media influence, and perceived opinion climate. Communication Research, 36(1), 54-75. doi:10.1177/0093650208326462

Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007a). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 103-126. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054

Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007b). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 99-118. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00331.x

Coe, K., Tewksbury, D., Bond, B. J., Drogos, K. L., Porter, R. W., Yahn, A., & Zhang, Y. (2008). Hostile news: Partisan use and perceptions of cable news programming. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 201-219. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00381.x

Colletta, L. (2009). Political satire and postmodern irony in the age of Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart. The Journal of Popular Culture, 42(5), 856-874. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5931.2009.00711.x

Compton, J. (2011). Surveying scholarship on The Daily Show and the Colbert Report. In A. Amarasingam (Ed.), The Stewart/Colbert effect: Essays on the real impacts of fake news (pp. 9-33). Jefferson (NC): McFarland.

Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206-262). New York (NY): Free Press.

Conway, M., Grabe, M. E., & Grieves, K. (2007). Villains, victims, and the virtuous in Bill O'Reilly’s "No-Spin Zone": Revisiting world war propaganda techniques. Journalism Studies, 8(2), 197-223. doi:10.1080/14616700601148820

REFERENCES 113

Costera Meijer, I. (2003). What is quality television news? A plea for extending the professional repertoire of newsmakers. Journalism Studies, 4(1), 15-29. doi:10.1080/14616700306496

Coulson, S., & Williams, R. F. (2005). Hemispheric asymmetries and joke comprehension. Neuropsychologia, 43(1), 128-141. doi:10.1016/ j.neuropsychologia.2004.03.015

Coyne, S. M., Padilla-Walker, L. M., & Howard, E. (2013). Emerging in a digital world: A decade review of media use, effects, and gratifications in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1(2), 125-137. doi:10.1177/2167696813479782

Crites, S. L., Fabrigar, L. R., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(6), 619-634. doi:10.1177/0146167294206001

Curran, J. (2010). Democratic value of entertainment: A reappraisal. Media & Jornalismo, 17(9), 69-85. Retrieved from http://www.cimj.org/images/ stories/docs_cimj/17_5-artigo.pdf

Curran, J., Douglas, A., & Whannel, G. (1980). The political economy of the human interest story. In A. Smith (Ed.), Newspapers and democracy: International essays on a changing medium (pp. 288-347). Cambridge (MA): The MIT Press.

Dahlgren, P. (2005). The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147-162. doi:10.1080/10584600590933160

Dalton, R. J. (2000). Citizen attitudes and political behavior. Comparative Political Studies, 33(6-7), 912-940. doi:10.1177/001041400003300609

Daschmann, G., & Brosius, H. (1999). Can a single incident create an issue? Exemplars in German television magazine shows. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(1), 35-51. doi:10.1177/107769909907600104

Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1-15. doi:10.1086/268763

De Vreese, C. H. (2002). Framing Europe: Television news and European integration. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Aksant Academic.

De Vreese, C. H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal Document Design, 13(1), 48-59. doi:10.1075/idjdd.13.1.06vre

114

De Vreese, C. H., & Klausch, T. (2011). The salience of frames and their effects on the support for CFSP and supranational policy allocation. In K. Oppermann, & H. Viehrig (Eds.), Issue salience in international politics (pp. 118-136). Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.

DellaVigna, S., & Kaplan, E. (2007). The Fox News effect: Media bias and voting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1187-1234. doi:10.1162/qjec.122.3.1187

Delli Carpini, M. X. (2012). Entertainment media and the political engagement of citizens. In H. A. Semetko, & M. Scammell (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of political communication (pp. 9-21). London, United Kingdom: SAGE.

Delli Carpini, M. X. (2013). Can we bridge the quantitative versus qualitative divide through the study of entertainment and politics? International Journal of Communication, 7(Breaking Boundaries), 531-551. Retrieved from http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/ article/view/1972

Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press.

Delli Carpini, M. X., & Williams, B. A. (2001). Let us infotain you: Politics in the new media age. In W. L. Bennett, & R. M. Entman (Eds.), Mediated politics: Communication in the future of democracy (pp. 160-181). New York (NY): Cambridge University Press.

DeLuca, K. M., & Peeples, J. (2002). From public sphere to public screen: Democracy, activism, and the "violence" of Seattle. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 19(2), 125-151. doi:10.1080/07393180216559

Diddi, A., & LaRose, R. (2006). Getting hooked on news: Uses and gratifications and the formation of news habits among college students in an Internet environment. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 193-210. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem5002_2

Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York (NY): Harper Row. Druckman, J. N., & Parkin, M. (2005). The impact of media bias: How editorial

slant affects voters. Journal of Politics, 67(4), 1030-1049. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00349.x

Druckman, J. N., & Kam, C. D. (2011). Students as experimental participants: A defense of the "narrow data base". In J. N. Druckman, D. P. Green, J. H. Kuklinski & A. Lupia (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science (pp. 41-57). New York (NY): Cambridge University Press.

REFERENCES 115

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando (FL): Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Eisend, M. (2009). A meta-analysis of humor in advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(2), 191-203. doi:10.1007/s11747-008-0096-y

Ellithorpe, M. E., Holbert, R. L., & Palmer-Wackerly, A. (2013). Procrastination and the shifting political media environment: An experimental study of media choice affecting a democratic outcome. Communication Studies, 64(5), 561-578. doi:10.1080/10510974.2013.832692

Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x

Erisen, C., Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2014). Affective contagion in effortful political thinking. Political Psychology, 35(2), 187-206. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00937.x

Esser, F. (1999). 'Tabloidization' of news: A comparative analysis of Anglo-American and German press journalism. European Journal of Communication, 14(3), 291-324. doi:10.1177/0267323199014003001

Feldman, S. (2013). Political ideology. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears & J. S. Levy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology (2nd ed., pp. 591-626). New York (NY): Oxford University Press.

Feldman, L. (2007). The news about comedy: Young audiences, The Daily Show, and evolving notions of journalism. Journalism, 8(4), 406-427. doi:10.1177/1464884907078655

Feldman, L. (2011a). The effects of journalist opinionation on learning from the news. Journal of Communication, 61(6), 1183-1201. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01602.x

Feldman, L. (2011b). The opinion factor: The effects of opinionated news on information processing and attitude change. Political Communication, 28(2), 163-181. doi:10.1080/10584609.2011.565014

Feldman, L. (2011c). Partisan differences in opinionated news perceptions: A test of the hostile media effect. Political Behavior, 33(3), 407-432. doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9139-4

Feldman, L. (2013). Learning about politics from The Daily Show: The role of viewer orientation and processing motivations. Mass Communication and Society, 16(4), 586-607. doi:10.1080/15205436.2012.735742

116

Feldman, L., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., & Leiserowitz, A. (2012). Climate on cable: The nature and impact of global warming coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 17(1), 3-31. doi:10.1177/1940161211425410

Feldman, S., & Johnston, C. (2014). Understanding the determinants of political ideology: Implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology, 35(3), 337-358. doi:10.1111/pops.12055

Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Four models of the public sphere in modern democracies. Theory and Society, 31(3), 289-324. doi:10.1023/A:1016284431021

Fields, J. M., & Schuman, H. (1976). Public beliefs about the beliefs of the public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40(4), 427-448. doi:10.1086/268330

Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56-80. doi:10.2307/466240

Freedman, D. A. (1991). Statistical models and shoe leather. Sociological Methodology, 21(1), 291-313. doi:10.2307/270939

Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. J. (2007). The logic of the survey experiment reexamined. Political Analysis, 15(1), 1-20. doi:10.1093/pan/mpl008

Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1-37. doi:10.1086/229213

Gans, H. J. (2009). Can popularization help the news media. In B. Zelizer (Ed.), The changing faces of journalism: Tabloidization, technology and truthiness (pp. 17-28). Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Garrett, R. K. (2009). Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: Reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication, 59(4), 676-699. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01452.x

Garrett, R. K., Carnahan, D., & Lynch, E. K. (2013). A turn toward avoidance? Selective exposure to online political information, 2004-2008. Political Behavior, 35(1), 113-134. doi:10.1007/s11109-011-9185-6

Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2010). What drives media slant? Evidence from U.S. daily newspapers. Econometrica, 78(1), 35-71. doi:10.3982/ECTA7195

Gibbon, P., & Durkin, K. (1995). The third person effect: Social distance and perceived media bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(5), 597-602. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420250509

REFERENCES 117

Gill, J. (2004). Introduction to the special issue. Political Analysis, 12(4), 323-337. doi:10.1093/pan/mph021

Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chaiken, S. (1994). The causes of hostile media judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30(2), 165-180. doi:10.1006/jesp.1994.1008

Glasser, T. L. (2000). Play and the power of news. Journalism, 1(1), 23-29. doi:10.1177/146488490000100104

Grabe, M. E., Zhou, S., & Barnett, B. (2001). Explicating sensationalism in television news: Content and the bells and whistles of form. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45(4), 635-655. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4504_6

Grabe, M. E., Zhou, S., Lang, A., & Bolls, P. D. (2000). Packaging television news: The effects of tabloid on information processing and evaluative responses. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44(4), 581-598. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4404_4

Graber, D. A. (1994). The infotainment quotient in routine television news: A director's perspective. Discourse & Society, 5(4), 483-508. doi:10.1177/0957926594005004004

Graber, D. A. (2004). Mediated politics and citizenship in the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 545-571. doi:10.1146/annurev. psych.55.090902.141550

Gray, J., Jones, J. P., & Thompson, E. (2009). The state of satire, the satire of state. In J. Gray, J. P. Jones & E. Thompson (Eds.), Satire TV: Politics and comedy in the post-network era (pp. 3-36). NY: New York University Press.

Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701-721. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701

Green, D. P., Ha, S. E., & Bullock, J. G. (2010). Enough already about “black box” experiments: Studying mediation is more difficult than most scholars suppose. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 628(1), 200-208. doi:10.1177/0002716209351526

Gross, K. (2008). Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29(2), 169-192. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00622.x

Gross, K., & D'Ambrosio, L. (2004). Framing emotional response. Political Psychology, 25(1), 1-29. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00354.x

118

Guggenheim, L., Kwak, N., & Campbell, S. W. (2011). Nontraditional news negativity: The relationship of entertaining political news use to political cynicism and mistrust. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 23(3), 287-314. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edr015

Gunther, A. C. (1992). Biased press or biased public? Attitudes toward media coverage of social groups. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 56(2), 147-167. doi:10.1086/269308

Gunther, A. C. (1998). The persuasive press inference: Effects of mass media on perceived public opinion. Communication Research, 25(5), 486-504. doi:10.1177/009365098025005002

Gunther, A. C., Christen, C. T., Liebhart, J. L., & Chia, S. C. (2001). Congenial public, contrary press, and biased estimates of the climate of opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(3), 295-320. doi:10.1086/322846

Gunther, A. C., & Christen, C. T. (2002). Projection or persuasive press? Contrary effects of personal opinion and perceived news coverage on estimates of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 52(1), 177-195. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02538.x

Gunther, A. C., Edgerly, S., Akin, H., & Broesch, J. A. (2012). Partisan evaluation of partisan information. Communication Research, 39(4), 439-457. doi:10.1177/0093650212441794

Gunther, A. C., & Schmitt, K. (2004). Mapping boundaries of the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 54(1), 55-70. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02613.x

Gunther, A. C., & Storey, J. D. (2003). The influence of presumed influence. Journal of Communication, 53(2), 199-215. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02586.x

Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411-426. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x

Haigh, M. M., & Heresco, A. (2010). Late-night Iraq: Monologue joke content and tone from 2003 to 2007. Mass Communication and Society, 13(2), 157-173. doi:10.1080/15205430903014884

Hall, S. (1973). Encoding and decoding in the television discourse. Birmingham, United Kingdom: Centre for Cultural Studies.

REFERENCES 119

Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing media systems: Three models of media and politics. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Hannah, G., & Cafferty, T. P. (2006). Attribute and responsibility framing effects in television news coverage of poverty. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(12), 2993-3014. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00139.x

Hansen, G. J., & Kim, H. (2011). Is the media biased against me? A meta-analysis of the hostile media effect research. Communication Research Reports, 28(2), 169-179. doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.565280

Hariman, R. (2007). In defense of Jon Stewart. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24(3), 273-277. doi:10.1080/07393180701521031

Harrington, S. (2008). Popular news in the 21st century: Time for a new critical approach? Journalism, 9(3), 266-284. doi:10.1177/1464884907089008

Hart, P. S. (2011). One or many? The influence of episodic and thematic climate change frames on policy preferences and individual behavior change. Science Communication, 33(1), 28-51. doi:10.1177/1075547010366400

Hart, R. P. (1999). Seducing America: How television charms the modern voter. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage.

Hart, R. P., & Hartelius, E. J. (2007). The political sins of Jon Stewart. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 24(3), 263-272. doi:10.1080/07393180701520991

Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408-420. doi:10.1080/03637750903310360

Hayes, A. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York (NY): Guilford Press.

Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2013). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/bmsp.12028

Hendriks Vettehen, P., Nuijten, K., & Beentjes, J. (2005). News in an age of competition: The case of sensationalism in Dutch television news, 1995-2001. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49(3), 282-295. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4903_2

Hendriks Vettehen, P., Beentjes, J., Nuijten, K., & Peeters, A. (2011). Arousing news characteristics in Dutch television news 1990–2004: An exploration of competitive strategies. Mass Communication and Society, 14(1), 93-112. doi:10.1080/15205431003615893

120

Hendriks Vettehen, P., Nuijten, K., & Peeters, A. (2008). Explaining effects of sensationalism on liking of television news stories: The role of emotional arousal. Communication Research, 35(3), 319-338. doi:10.1177/0093650208315960

Hendriks Vettehen, P., Zhou, S., Kleemans, M., d'Haenens, L., & Lin, T. T. C. (2012). Competitive pressure and arousing television news: A cross-cultural study. Asian Journal of Communication, 22(2), 179-196. doi:10.1080/01292986.2011.642394

Hill, M. R. (2013). Developing a normative approach to political satire: A critical perspective. International Journal of Communication, 7(Breaking Boundaries), 324-337. Retrieved from http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/ view/1934/856

Hjarvard, S. (2000). Proximity: The name of the ratings game. Nordicom, 21(2), 63-81. Retrieved from http://www.nordicom.gu.se/en/tidskrifter/nordicom-review-22000/proximity-name-ratings-game

Hmielowski, J. D., Holbert, R. L., & Lee, J. (2011). Predicting the consumption of political TV satire: Affinity for political humor, The Daily Show, and the Colbert Report. Communication Monographs, 78(1), 96-114. doi:10.1080/03637751.2010.542579

Holbert, R. L., Lee, J., Esralew, S., Walther, W. O., Hmielowski, J. D., & Landreville, K. D. (2013). Affinity for political humor: An assessment of internal factor structure, reliability, and validity. Humor, 26(4), 551-572. doi:10.1515/humor-2013-0034

Holbert, R. L. (2004). Political talk radio, perceived fairness, and the establishment of President George W. Bush’s political legitimacy. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 9(3), 12-27. doi:10.1177/1081180X04265976

Holbert, R. L. (2005). A typology for the study of entertainment television and politics. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(3), 436-453. doi:10.1177/0002764205279419

Holbert, R. L. (2013). Developing a normative approach to political satire: An empirical perspective. International Journal of Communication, 7(Breaking Boundaries), 305-323.

Holbert, R. L. (2014). Political satire and the generation of influence within democratic frameworks: The political satire appropriateness (PSA) model. Paper presented at the Meeting of ICA 64th Annual Conference, Seattle (WA).

REFERENCES 121

Holbert, R. L., Garrett, R. K., & Gleason, L. S. (2010). A new era of minimal effects? A response to Bennett and Iyengar. Journal of Communication, 60(1), 15-34. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01470.x

Holbert, R. L., Hmielowski, J. D., & Weeks, B. E. (2012). Clarifying relationships between ideology and ideologically oriented cable TV news use: A case of suppression. Communication Research, 39(2), 194-216. doi:10.1177/0093650211405650

Holbert, R. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2003). The importance of indirect effects in media effects research: Testing for mediation in structural equation modeling. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47(4), 556-572. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4704_5

Holbert, R. L., & Young, D. G. (2013). Exploring relations between political entertainment media and traditional political communication information outlets: A research agenda. In E. Scharrer (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of media studies (pp. 484-504). Malden (MA): Blackwell.

Holbert, R. L., Hmielowski, J., Jain, P., Lather, J., & Morey, A. (2011). Adding nuance to the study of political humor effects: Experimental research on juvenalian satire versus horatian satire. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(3), 187-211. doi:10.1177/0002764210392156

Hollander, B. A. (1995). The new news and the 1992 presidential campaign: Perceived vs. actual political knowledge. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(4), 786-798. doi:10.1177/107769909507200403

Hovland, C. I. (1959). Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change. American Psychologist, 14(1), 8-17. doi:10.1037/h0042210

Hvitfelt, H. (1994). The commercialization of the evening news: Changes in narrative techniques in Swedish TV news. The Nordicom Review, 2, 33-41.

Hwang, H., Pan, Z., & Sun, Y. (2008). Influence of hostile media perception on willingness to engage in discursive activities: An examination of mediating role of media indignation. Media Psychology, 11(1), 76-97. doi:10.1080/15213260701813454

Iyengar, S. (2001). The method is the message: The current state of political communication research. Political Communication, 18(2), 225-229. doi:10.1080/105846001750322998

Iyengar, S. (2010). Experimental designs for political communication research: Using new technology and online participant pools to overcome the

122

problem of generalizability. In E. P. Bucy, & R. L. Holbert (Eds.), Sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (pp. 129-148). New York (NY): Routledge.

Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible?: How television frames political issues. Chicago (IL): The University of Chicago Press.

Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 19-39. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x

Jamieson, K. H., & Cappella, J. N. (2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. New York (NY): Oxford University Press.

Jennings, M. K., & Markus, G. B. (1984). Partisan orientations over the long haul: Results from the three-wave political socialization panel study. The American Political Science Review, 78(4), 1000-1018. doi:10.2307/1955804

Jones, D. A. (2002). The polarizing effect of new media messages. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14(2), 158-174. doi:10.1093/ijpor/14.2.158

Jones, J. P. (2009). Believable fictions: Redactional culture and the will to truthiness. In B. Zelizer (Ed.), The changing faces of journalism: Tabloidization, technology and truthiness (pp. 127-143). Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Jones, J. P. (2011). Rethinking television’s relationship to politics in the post-network era. In R. L. Fox, & J. M. Ramos (Eds.), iPolitics: Citizens, elections, and governing in the new media era (pp. 48-75). New York (NY): Cambridge University Press.

Jones, J. P. (2012a). Fox News and the performance of ideology. Cinema Journal, 51(4), 178-185. doi:10.1353/cj.2012.0073

Jones, J. P. (2012b). The 'new' news as no 'news': US cable news channels as branded political entertainment television. Media International Australia, 144(August), 146-155. Retrieved from http://www.drjeffreypjones.com/ new-news-no-news-us-cable-news-channels-branded-political-entertainment-television

Jones, J. P. (2013). Toward a new vocabulary for political communication research: A response to Michael X. Delli Carpini. International Journal of Communication, 7(Breaking Boundaries), 510-530. Retrieved from http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/ article/view/1973/866

REFERENCES 123

Jones, J. P., & Baym, G. (2010). A dialogue on satire news and the crisis of truth in postmodern political television. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 34(3), 278-294. doi:10.1177/0196859910373654

Joslyn, M. R. (1997). The public nature of personal opinion: The impact of collective sentiment on individual appraisal. Political Behavior, 19(4), 337-363. doi:10.1023/A:1024847805976

Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509-523. doi:10.1086/268109

Kim, K. S. (2011). Public understanding of the politics of global warming in the news media: The hostile media approach. Public Understanding of Science, 20(5), 690-705. doi:10.1177/0963662510372313

Kim, Y. M., & Vishak, J. (2008). Just laugh! You don't need to remember: The effects of entertainment media on political information acquisition and information processing in political judgment. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 338-360. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00388.x

Kinder, D. R. (1998). Opinion and action in the realm of politics. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 778-867). New York (NY): McGraw-Hill.

Kitch, C. (2009). Tears and trauma in the news. In B. Zelizer (Ed.), The changing faces of journalism: Tabloidization, technology and truthiness (pp. 29-39). Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Klapper, J. T. (1960). The effects of mass communication. New York (NY): Free Press. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New

York (NY): Guilford Press. Krcmar, M. (2009). Individual differences in media effects. In R. L. Nabi, & M. B.

Oliver (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 237-250). Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage.

Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. J. (2000). Reconsidering the rational public: Cognition, heuristics, and mass opinion. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality (pp. 153-182). New York (NY): University Press Cambridge.

Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480-498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480

LaMarre, H. L. (2013). When parody and reality collide: Examining the effects of Colbert’s Super PAC satire on issue knowledge and policy engagement across media formats. International Journal of Communication, 7(Breaking

124

Boundaries), 394-413. Retrieved from http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1939/859

LaMarre, H. L., Landreville, K. D., & Beam, M. A. (2009). The irony of satire: Political ideology and the motivation to see what you want to see in the Colbert Report. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(2), 212-231. doi:10.1177/1940161208330904

LaMarre, H. L., Landreville, K. D., Young, D., & Gilkerson, N. (2014). Humor works in funny ways: Examining satirical tone as a key determinant in political humor message processing. Mass Communication and Society, 17(3), 400-423. doi:10.1080/15205436.2014.891137

LaMarre, H. L., & Walther, W. (2013). Ability matters: Testing the differential effects of political news and late-night political comedy on cognitive responses and the role of ability in micro-level opinion formation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(3), 303-322. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edt008

Lecheler, S., Schuck, A., & De Vreese, C. (2013). Dealing with feelings: Positive and negative discrete emotions as mediators of news framing effects. Communications, 38(2), 189-209. doi:10.1515/commun-2013-0011

Lecheler, S., De Vreese, C., & Slothuus, R. (2009). Issue importance as a moderator of framing effects. Communication Research, 36(3), 400-425. doi:10.1177/0093650209333028

Lee, A. M. (2013a). News audiences revisited: Theorizing the link between audience motivations and news consumption. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(3), 300-317. doi:10.1080/08838151.2013.816712

Lee, A. M. (2013b). News audiences revisited: Theorizing the link between audience motivations and news consumption. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(3), 300-317. doi:10.1080/08838151.2013.816712

Lefevere, J., De Swert, K., & Walgrave, S. (2012). Effects of popular exemplars in television news. Communication Research, 39(1), 103-119. doi:10.1177/0093650210387124

Lehman-Wilzig, S. N., & Seletzky, M. (2010). Hard news, soft news, ‘general’ news: The necessity and utility of an intermediate classification. Journalism, 11(1), 37-56. doi:10.1177/1464884909350642

Levendusky, M. S. (2013). Why do partisan media polarize viewers? American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 611-623. doi:10.1111/ajps.12008

REFERENCES 125

Macdonald, M. (1998). Personalisation in current affairs journalism. Javnost-the Public, 5(3), 109-126. Retrieved from http://www.javnost-thepublic.org/article/1998/3/8/

MacKuen, M. B., Erikson, R. S., & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Macropartisanship. The American Political Science Review, 83(4), 1125-1142. doi:10.2307/1961661

Marchi, R. (2012). With facebook, blogs, and fake news, teens reject journalistic “objectivity”. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 36(3), 246-262. doi:10.1177/0196859912458700

Marcus, G. E. (2000). Emotions in politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 3(1), 221-250. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.221

Matthes, J., & Rauchfleisch, A. (2013). The Swiss “Tina Fey effect”: The content of late-night political humor and the negative effects of political parody on the evaluation of politicians. Communication Quarterly, 61(5), 596-614. doi:10.1080/01463373.2013.822405

Matthes, J. (2013). The affective underpinnings of hostile media perceptions: Exploring the distinct effects of affective and cognitive involvement. Communication Research, 40(3), 360-387. doi:10.1177/0093650211420255

Mayer, J. D., Gaschke, Y. N., Braverman, D. L., & Evans, T. W. (1992). Mood-congruent judgment is a general effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(1), 119-132. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.1.119

McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 233-246). New York (NY): Random House.

McLeod, D. M., Kosicki, G. M., & McLeod, J. M. (2009). Political communication effects. In J. Bryant, & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 228-251). New York (NY): Routledge.

McManus, J. (1995). A market-based model of news production. Communication Theory, 5(4), 301-338. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1995.tb00113.x

McNair, B. (2009). Journalism and democracy. In K. Wahl-Jorgensen, & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), The handbook of journalism studies (pp. 237-249). New York (NY): Routledge.

Meddaugh, P. M. (2010). Bakhtin, Colbert, and the center of discourse: Is there no “truthiness” in humor? Critical Studies in Media Communication, 27(4), 376-390. doi:10.1080/15295030903583606

126

Meirick, P. C. (2013). Motivated misperception? Party, education, partisan news, and belief in “death panels”. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90(1), 39-57. doi:10.1177/1077699012468696

Meyer, J. C. (2000). Humor as a double-edged sword: Four functions of humor in communication. Communication Theory, 10(3), 310-331. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2000.tb00194.x

Mindich, D. T. Z. (2005). Tuned out: Why Americans under 40 don't follow the news. New York (NY): Oxford University Press.

Mohammed, S. N. (2014). “It-getting” in the Colbert Nation online forum. Mass Communication and Society, 17(2), 173-194. doi:10.1080/15205436.2013. 804935

Moors, A. (2013). On the causal role of appraisal in emotion. Emotion Review, 5(2), 132-140. doi:10.1177/1754073912463601

Morris, J. S. (2005). The Fox News factor. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 10(3), 56-79. doi:10.1177/1081180X05279264

Morris, J. S. (2007). Slanted objectivity? Perceived media bias, cable news exposure, and political attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 88(3), 707-728. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00479.x

Morris, J. S. (2009). The Daily show with Jon Stewart and audience attitude change during the 2004 party conventions. Political Behavior, 31(1), 79-102. doi:10.1007/s11109-008-9064-y

Morris, J. S., & Francia, P. L. (2010). Cable news, public opinion, and the 2004 party conventions. Political Research Quarterly, 63(4), 834-849. doi:10.1177/1065912909338463

Morton, R. B., & Williams, K. C. (2008). Experimentation in political science. In J. M. Box-Steffensmeier, H. Brady & D. Collier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political methodology (pp. 339-356). United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Moyer-Gusé, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory, 18(3), 407-425. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.x

Mullainathan, S., & Shleifer, A. (2005). The market for news. The American Economic Review, 95(4), 1031-1053. doi:10.1257/0002828054825619

Munro, G. D., Ditto, P. H., Lockhart, L. K., Fagerlin, A., Gready, M., & Peterson, E. (2002). Biased assimilation of sociopolitical arguments: Evaluating the

REFERENCES 127

1996 U.S. presidential debate. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24(1), 15-26. doi:10.1207/S15324834BASP2401_2

Mutz, D. C. (1998). Impersonal influence: How perceptions of mass collectives affect political attitudes. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Mutz, D. C., & Soss, J. (1997). Reading public opinion: The influence of news coverage on perceptions of public sentiment. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 61(3), 431-451. doi:10.1086/297807

Nabi, R. L., Moyer-Gusé, E., & Byrne, S. (2007). All joking aside: A serious investigation into the persuasive effect of funny social issue messages. Communication Monographs, 74(1), 29-54. doi:10.1080/03637750701196896

Nabi, R. L. (1999). A cognitive-functional model for the effects of discrete negative emotions on information processing, attitude change, and recall. Communication Theory, 9(3), 292-320. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00172.x

Nabi, R. L. (2002). Anger, fear, uncertainty, and attitudes: A test of the cognitive-functional model. Communication Monographs, 69(3), 204-216. doi:10.1080/03637750216541

Nabi, R. L. (2009). Emotion and media effects. In R. L. Nabi, & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 205-221). Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage.

Nelson, T. E., & Oxley, Z. M. (1999). Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. The Journal of Politics, 61(4), 1040-1067. doi:10.2307/2647553

Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19(3), 221-246. doi:10.1023/A:1024834831093

Neuman, W. R. (2001). The impact of the new media. In W. L. Bennett, & R. M. Entman (Eds.), Mediated politics: Communication in the future of democracy (pp. 299-320). New York (NY): Cambridge University Press.

Norton, M. (2011). A structural hermeneutics of the O’Reilly factor. Theory and Society, 40(3), 1-32. doi:10.1007/s11186-011-9143-7

Nummenmaa, L., Hyönä, J., & Calvo, M. G. (2010). Semantic categorization precedes affective evaluation of visual scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 139(2), 222-246. doi:10.1037/a0018858

Ofcom. (2014). Digital news as popular as newspapers for the first time. Retrieved from http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2014/digital-news-as-popular-as-newspapers-for-first-time/

128

Oliver, M. B., & Krakowiak, K. M. (2009). Individual differences in media effects. In J. Bryant, & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 517-531). New York (NY): Routledge.

Oliver, M. B., & Raney, A. A. (2011). Entertainment as pleasurable and meaningful: Identifying hedonic and eudaimonic motivations for entertainment consumption. Journal of Communication, 61(5), 984-1004. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01585.x

Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), 867-872. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009

Ottati, V. C., Steenbergen, M. R., & Riggle, E. (1992). The cognitive and affective components of political attitudes: Measuring the determinants of candidate evaluations. Political Behavior, 14(4), 423-442. doi:10.1007/BF00992043

Paek, H., Gunther, A. C., McLeod, D. M., & Hove, T. (2011). How adolescents’ perceived media influence on peers affects smoking decisions. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 45(1), 123-146. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.2010.01195.x

Painter, C., & Hodges, L. (2010). Mocking the news: How the Daily Show with Jon Stewart holds traditional broadcast news accountable. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 25(4), 257-274. doi:10.1080/08900523.2010.512824

Patterson, T. E. (2000). Doing well and doing good: How soft news and critical journalism are shrinking the news audience and weakening democracy - and what news outlets can do about it. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. Retrieved from http://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/soft_news_and_critical_journalism_2000.pdf

Patterson, T. E. (2010). Media abundance and democracy. Media & Jornalismo, 17(9), 13-29. Retrieved from http://www.cimj.org/images/stories/ docs_cimj/17-1-artigo.pdf

Paul, B., Salwen, M. B., & Dupagne, M. (2000). The third-person effect: A meta-analysis of the perceptual hypothesis. Mass Communication and Society, 3(1), 57-85. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0301_04

Peil. (2005). NOS journaal 50 jaar [NOS news 50 years]. Retrieved from http://www.peil.nl/?1907

REFERENCES 129

Perloff, R. M. (1999). The third person effect: A critical review and synthesis. Media Psychology, 1(4), 353-378. doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0104_4

Perry, S. D., & Gonzenbach, W. J. (1997). Effects of news exemplification extended: Considerations of controversiality and perceived future opinion. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 41(2), 229-244. doi:10.1080/08838159709364403

Peters, C. (2010). No-Spin Zones: The rise of the American cable news magazine and Bill O'Reilly. Journalism Studies, 11(6), 832-851. doi:10.1080/14616701003658390

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., Strathman, A. J., & Priester, J. R. (2005). To think or not to think: Exploring two routes to persuasion. In T. C. Brock, & M. C. Green (Eds.), Persuasion: Psychological insights and perspectives (pp. 81-116). Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage.

Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., & Priester, J. R. (2009). Mass media attitude change: Implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In J. Bryant, & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 125-164). New York (NY): Routledge.

Pew Research Center (2013). Amid criticism, support for media’s ‘watchdog’ role stands out. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2013/08/08/amid-criticism-support-for-medias-watchdog-role-stands-out/

Pfau, M., Szabo, A., Anderson, J., Morrill, J., Zubric, J., & H-Wan, H. (2001). The role and impact of affect in the process of resistance to persuasion. Human Communication Research, 27(2), 216-252. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2001.tb00781.x

Pijnenburg, N. H. J. M. (2012). Vraagontwerp op scherp: Een vergelijkend onderzoek naar de interviewstijlen van PowNews en Nieuwsuur [Questions on the edge: A comparative study on the interview styles of PowNews and Nieuwsuur]. (Unpublished Master thesis). Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg University.

Piurko, Y., Schwartz, S. H., & Davidov, E. (2011). Basic personal values and the meaning of left-right political orientations in 20 countries. Political Psychology, 32(4), 537-561. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00828.x

Plasser, F. (2005). From hard to soft news standards? How political journalists in different media systems evaluate the shifting quality of news. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 10(2), 47-68. doi:10.1177/1081180X05277746

130

Podlas, K. (2013). Funny or no laughin matter?: How television viewers interpret satire of legal themes. Seton Hall Journal of Sports and Entertainment Law, 21(2), 289-331. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/shjsl21&div= 13&g_sent=1&collection=journals#293

Polk, J., Young, D. G., & Holbert, R. L. (2009). Humor complexity and political influence: An elaboration likelihood approach to the effects of humor type in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 17(4), 202-219. doi:10.1080/15456870903210055

Popkin, S. L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.

Postman, N. (1986). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. London, United Kingdom: Heinemann.

Potter, D. (2006). His way: How Roger Ailes’ game-plan created Fox's cable domination. American Journalism Review, 28(6), 78. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=23295152&site=ehost-live;

PowNed. (2009). PowNed beleidsplan: PowNed brengt de mediarevolutie naar Hilversum [PowNed policy plan: PowNed brings the media revolution to Hilversum]. Retrieved from http://www.powned.tv/docs/PowNed_01_beleidsplan_web.pdf

Prior, M. (2003). Any good news in soft news? The impact of soft news preference on political knowledge. Political Communication, 20(2), 149-171. doi:10.1080/10584600390211172

Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press.

Prior, M. (2005). News vs. Entertainment: How increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 577-592. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00143.x

Prior, M. (2013a). The challenge of measuring media exposure: Reply to Dilliplane, Goldman, and Mutz. Political Communication, 30(4), 620-634. doi:10.1080/10584609.2013.819539

Prior, M. (2013b). Media and political polarization. Annual Review of Political Science, 16(1), 101-127. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135242

REFERENCES 131

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of american community. New York (NY): Simon & Schuster.

Raney, A. A. (2006). The psychology of disposition-based theories of media enjoyment. In J. Bryant, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of entertainment (pp. 137-150). Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum.

Reinecke, L., Hartmann, T., & Eden, A. (2014). The guilty couch potato: The role of ego depletion in reducing recovery through media use. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 569-589. doi:10.1111/jcom.12107

Reinemann, C., Stanyer, J., Scherr, S., & Legnante, G. (2012). Hard and soft news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13(2), 221-239. doi:10.1177/1464884911427803

Richardson, J. D., Huddy, W. P., & Morgan, S. M. (2008). The hostile media effect, biased assimilation, and perceptions of a presidential debate. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(5), 1255-1270. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00347.x

Roseman, I. J. (1991). Appraisal determinants of discrete emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 5(3), 161-200. doi:10.1080/02699939108411034

Roth, F. S., Weinmann, C., Schneider, F. M., Hopp, F. R., & Vorderer, P. (2014). Seriously entertained: Antecedents and consequences of hedonic and eudaimonic entertainment experiences with political talk shows on TV. Mass Communication and Society, 17(3), 379-399. doi:10.1080/15205436.2014.891135

Rottinghaus, B., Bird, K., Ridout, T., & Self, R. (2008). "It’s better than being informed": College-aged viewers of The Daily Show. In J. C. Baumgartner, & J. S. Morris (Eds.), Laughing matters: Humor and American politics in the media age (pp. 279-294). New York (NY): Routledge.

Rucinski, D. (1992). Personalized bias in news: The potency of the particular? Communication Research, 19(1), 91-108. doi:10.1177/009365092019001004

Scherer, K. R. (1993). Studying the emotion-antecedent appraisal process: An expert system approach. Cognition & Emotion, 7(3-4), 325-355. doi:10.1080/02699939308409192

Schmeets, H., & Linssen, R. (2012). Growing confidence in fellow men. Statistics Netherlands web magazine. Retrieved from http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/bevolking/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2012/2012-3551-wm.htm

132

Schmidt, G., & Weiner, B. (1988). An attribution-affect-action theory of behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(3), 610-621. doi:10.1177/0146167288143021

Scholten, O., Schaper, J., Ismaili, N., Welbers, K., & Ruigrok, N. (2011). Nieuws & actualiteiten op televisie: Pluriformiteit rond de middenstip [News and current affairs on television: Diversity around the center spot]. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Nieuwsmonitor. Retrieved from http://www.nieuwsmonitor.net/d/97/actualiteiten_pdf

Schönbach, K., & De Waal, E. (2011). Het nieuwe media-aanbod: Een gevaar voor de democratie? [The new media supply: A threat to democracy?]. (Studies voor het Stimuleringsfonds voor de Pers, S34). Diemen, the Netherlands: AMB. Retrieved from http://dare.uva.nl/document/2/108183

Schulz, W. (1997). Changes of the mass media and the public sphere. Javnost-the Public, 4(2), 5-16. Retrieved from http://www.javnost-thepublic.org/article/1997/2/4/

Schulz, W., & Zeh, R. (2005). The changing election coverage of German television. A content analysis: 1990-2002 . Communications, 30(4), 385-407. doi:10.1515/comm.2005.30.4.385

Scott, D. K., & Gobetz, R. H. (1992). Hard news/soft news content of the national broadcast networks, 1972-1987. Journalism Quarterly, 69(2), 406-412. doi:10.1177/107769909206900214

Serazio, M. (2009). Rethinking a villain, redeeming a format: The crisis and cure in tabloidization. In B. Zelizer (Ed.), The changing faces of journalism: Tabloidization, technology and truthiness (pp. 13-16). Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge.

Serlin, R. C., & Levin, J. R. (1985). Teaching how to derive directly interpretable coding schemes for multiple regression analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 10(3), 223-238. doi:10.2307/1164794

Shen, L., & Dillard, J. P. (2007). The influence of behavioral inhibition/approach systems and message framing on the processing of persuasive health messages. Communication Research, 34(4), 433-467. doi:10.1177/0093650207302787

Shen, L., & Huggins, C. (2013). Testing the model of influence of presumed influence in a boundary condition: The impact of question order. Human Communication Research, 39(4), 470-491. doi:10.1111/hcre.12013

Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York (NY): Harper & Brothers.

REFERENCES 133

Shrum, L. J. (2009). Media consumption and perceptions of social reality: Effects and underlying processes. In J. Bryant, & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 50-73). New York (NY): Routledge.

Simon, H. A. (1954). Bandwagon and underdog effects and the possibility of election predictions. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 18(3), 245-253. doi:10.1086/266513

Slater, M. D. (2007). Reinforcing spirals: The mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on individual behavior and social identity. Communication Theory, 17(3), 281-303. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00296.x

Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12(2), 173-191. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00265.x

Smith, G., & Searles, K. (2013). Fair and balanced news or a difference of opinion? Why opinion shows matter for media effects. Political Research Quarterly, 66(3), 671-684. doi:10.1177/1065912912465922

Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press.

Sparks, C. (2000). Introduction: The panic over tabloid news. In C. Sparks, & J. Tulloch (Eds.), Tabloid tales: Global debates over media standards (pp. 1-40). Lanham (MD): Rowman & Littlefield.

Steenvoorden, E., Dekker, P. & Van Houwelingen, P. (2011). COB Kwartaalbericht 1. Retrieved from http://www.scp.nl/dsresource?objectid=28081& type=org

Stimson, J. A. (1991). Public opinion in America: Moods, cycles, and swings. Boulder (CO): Westview Press.

Stimson, J. A., MacKuen, M. B., & Erikson, R. S. (1995). Dynamic representation. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 543-565. doi:10.2307/2082973

Strange, J. J., & Leung, C. C. (1999). How anecdotal accounts in news and in fiction can influence judgments of a social problem’s urgency, causes, and cures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(4), 436-449. doi:10.1177/0146167299025004004

134

Strömbäck, J. (2005). In search of a standard: Four models of democracy and their normative implications for journalism. Journalism Studies, 6(3), 331-345. doi:10.1080/14616700500131950

Stroud, N. J. (2010). Polarization and partisan selective exposure. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 556-576. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01497.x

Sun, Y., Pan, Z., & Shen, L. (2008). Understanding the third-person perception: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 280-300. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00385.x

Sunstein, C. (2007). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of

political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x

Taber, C. S., & Young, E. (2013). Political information processing. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears & J. S. Levy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 525-558). New York (NY): Oxford University Press.

Taylor, A. B., MacKinnon, D. P., & Tein, J. (2008). Tests of the three-path mediated effect. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 241-269. doi:10.1177/1094428107300344

Tewksbury, D., Jones, J., Peske, M. W., Raymond, A., & Vig, W. (2000). The interaction of news and advocate frames: Manipulating audience perceptions of a local public policy issue. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(4), 804-829. doi:10.1177/107769900007700406

Thussu, D. K. (2007). News as entertainment: The rise of global infotainment. London, United Kingdom: Sage.

Treier, S., & Hillygus, D. S. (2009). The nature of political ideology in the contemporary electorate. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(4), 679-703. doi:10.1093/poq/nfp067

Tsfati, Y. (2007). Hostile media perceptions, presumed media influence, and minority alienation: The case of Arabs in Israel. Journal of Communication, 57(4), 632-651. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00361.x

Tsfati, Y., & Cohen, J. (2005). The influence of presumed media influence on democratic legitimacy: The case of Gaza settlers. Communication Research, 32(6), 794-821. doi:10.1177/0093650205281057

Tuchman, G. (1973). Making news by doing work: Routinizing the unexpected. American Journal of Sociology, 79(1), 110-131. doi:10.1086/225510

REFERENCES 135

Turow, J. (1983). Local television: Producing soft news. Journal of Communication, 33(2), 111-123. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1983.tb02393.x

Valentino, N. A., & Nardis, Y. (2013). Political communication: Form and consequence of the information environment. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears & J. S. Levy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology (2nd ed., pp. 559-590). New York (NY): Oxford University Press.

Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013a). Five challenges for the future of media-effects research. International Journal of Communication, 7(Comm Research - Views from Europe), 197-215. Retrieved from http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1962/849

Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013b). The differential susceptibility to media effects model. Journal of Communication, 63(2), 221-243. doi:10.1111/jcom.12024

Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. 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(3), 577-585. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577

Van Praag, P., & Brants, K. (2000). Tussen beeld en inhoud: Politiek en media in de verkiezingen van 1998 [Between image and content: Politics and media in the elections of 1998]. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Het Spinhuis.

Van Praag, P., & Brants, K. (2014). Media, macht en politiek: De verkiezingscampagne van 2012 [Media, power and politics: The election campaign of 2012]. Diemen, the Netherlands: AMB.

Van Zoonen, L. (2005). Entertaining the citizen: When politics and popular culture converge. Lanham (MD): Rowman & Littlefield.

Van Zoonen, L. (2007). Audience reactions to Hollywood politics. Media, Culture & Society, 29(4), 531-547. doi:10.1177/0163443707076188

Vidmar, N., & Rokeach, M. (1974). Archie Bunker’s bigotry: A study in selective perception and exposure. Journal of Communication, 24(1), 36-47. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00353.x

Vraga, E. K., Carr, D. J., Nytes, J. P., & Shah, D. V. (2010). Precision vs. Realism on the framing continuum: Understanding the underpinnings of message effects. Political Communication, 27(1), 1-19. doi:10.1080/10584600903297927

Vraga, E. K., Edgerly, S., Bode, L., Carr, D. J., Bard, M., Johnson, C. N., Kim, Y. M., Shah, D. V. (2012). The correspondent, the comic, and the

136

combatant: The consequences of host style in political talk shows. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(1), 5-22. doi:10.1177/1077699011428575

Warner, J. (2007). Political culture jamming: The dissident humor of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Popular Communication, 5(1), 17-36. doi:10.1080/15405700709336783

Weaver, D. H. (1996). What voters learn from media. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546(The Media and Politics), 34-47. doi:10.1177/0002716296546001004

Weibel, D., Wissmath, B., & Mast, F. W. (2011). The role of cognitive appraisal in media-induced presence and emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 25(7), 1291-1298. doi:10.1080/02699931.2010.543016

Wicks, R. H. (2006). Media information processing. In J. Bryant, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Psychology of entertainment (pp. 85-102). Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum.

Williams, B. A., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2011). After broadcast news: Media regimes, democracy, and the new information environment. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press.

Williams, J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Resampling and distribution of the product methods for testing indirect effects in complex models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 15(1), 23-51. doi:10.1080/10705510701758166

Wlezien, C. (2004). Patterns of representation: Dynamics of public preferences and policy. The Journal of Politics, 66(1), 1-24. doi:10.1046/j.1468-2508.2004.00139.x

Wlezien, C. (1995). The public as thermostat: Dynamics of preferences for spending. American Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 981-1000. doi:10.2307/2111666

Wonneberger, A., Schoenbach, K., & Van Meurs, L. (2013). How keeping up diversifies: Watching public affairs TV in the Netherlands 1988–2010. European Journal of Communication, 28(6), 646-662. doi:10.1177/0267323113501150

Xenos, M. A., & Becker, A. B. (2009). Moments of zen: Effects of The Daily Show on information seeking and political learning. Political Communication, 26(3), 317-332. doi:10.1080/10584600903053569

REFERENCES 137

Xu, J., & Gonzenbach, W. J. (2008). Does a perceptual discrepancy lead to action? A meta-analysis of the behavioral component of the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(3), 375-385. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edn031

Yoo, C., & MacInnis, D. (2005). The brand attitude formation process of emotional and informational ads. Journal of Business Research, 58(10), 1397-1406. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.03.011

Young, D. G., Holbert, R. L., & Jamieson, K. H. (2013). Successful practices for the strategic use of political parody and satire: Lessons from the P6 symposium and the 2012 election campaign. American Behavioral Scientist, 58(9), 1111-1130. doi:10.1177/0002764213506213

Young, D. G., & Tisinger, R. M. (2006). Dispelling late-night myths: News consumption among late-night comedy viewers and the predictors of exposure to various late-night shows. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(3), 113-134. doi:10.1177/1081180X05286042

Young, D. G. (2004). Late-night comedy in election 2000: Its influence on candidate trait ratings and the moderating effects of political knowledge and partisanship. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48(1), 1-22. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4801_1

Young, D. G. (2008). The privileged role of the late-night joke: Exploring humor's role in disrupting argument scrutiny. Media Psychology, 11(1), 119-142. doi:10.1080/15213260701837073

Young, D. G. (2013). Laughter, learning, or enlightenment? Viewing and avoidance motivations behind The Daily Show and the Colbert Report. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(2), 153-169. doi:10.1080/08838151.2013.787080

Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press.

Zaller, J. R. (2003). A new standard of news quality: Burglar alarms for the monitorial citizen. Political Communication, 20(2), 109-130. doi:10.1080/10584600390211136

Zelizer, B. (2007). Introduction: On finding new ways of thinking about journalism. Political Communication, 24(2), 111-114. doi:10.1080/10584600701312829

Zillmann, D., & Brosius, H. (2000). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum.

138

Zillmann, D., & Cantor, J. R. (1972). Directionality of transitory dominance as a communication variable affecting humor appreciation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(2), 191-198. doi:10.1037/h0033384

Zillmann, D., Gibson, R., Sundar, S. S., & Perkins, J. W. (1996). Effects of exemplification in news reports on the perception of social issues. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(2), 427-444. doi:10.1177/107769909607300213

139

Appendix A: Correlation matrix and descriptive information of Chapter 3

Table A1. Descriptive information and observed correlations between variables used in the structural equation model (n = 231)

Variable X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 X15

X1: Obj. NOS vs. Opi. PowNews 1

X2: Obj. PowNews vs. Opi. PowNews -.577 1

X3: Obj. NOS vs. Opi. NOS -.568 .328 1

X4: Political preference -.006 -.099 .021 1

X5: Obj. NOS vs. Opi. PowNews × Political preference -.012 -.096 -.011 .004 1

X6: Obj. PowNews vs. Opi. PowNews × Pol. preference -.092 .099 .063 -.060 -.618 1

X7: Obj. NOS vs. Opi. NOS × Political preference -.011 .065 .013 .015 -.590 .365 1

X8: Presumed influence .080 .070 .066 .003 -.108 -.042 .035 1

X9: Perceived opinion climate -.083 .106 .113 .103 -.033 -.072 -.092 .313 1

X10: Perceived bias .091 .246 .236 -.113 -.146 -.013 .053 .179 .097 1

X11: Anger .097 -.023 .063 -.005 -.066 .042 .106 -.013 -.144 .257 1

X12: Widening as soon as possible -.070 .136 .090 .357 .009 -.112 -.084 .275 .497 -.008 -.248 1

X13: Widening is essential -.084 .099 .041 .269 .010 -.061 -.027 .213 .471 -.088 -.258 .833 1

X14: First examine alternatives -.075 .173 .076 .301 .025 -.047 -.029 .186 .358 .065 -.217 .697 .589 1

X15: Protecting nature important -.022 .093 .008 .336 .028 -.115 .028 .225 .405 -.008 -.150 .654 .623 .698 1

Mean (M) 0.002 -0.001 -0.008 -0.017 -0.004 -0.061 0.013 0.736 61.805 4.671 4.983 4.370 4.890 3.680 3.952

Standard deviation (SD) 0.501 0.435 0.429 1.414 0.707 0.630 0.618 1.814 14.732 2.679 3.838 2.305 2.063 2.398 2.173

140

Appendix B: Correlation matrix and descriptive information of Chapter 4

Table B1. Correlation matrix of the variables used in the structural equation model of Chapter 4 (n = 268).

X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X12 X13 X14 X15 X16 X17 X18 X19 X20 X21 X1: Subtle with background info vs. Subtle humor 1.000

X2: Subtle humor vs. News item .626 1.000 X3: News item vs. Harsh humor .419 .670 1.000

X4: Harsh humor vs. Harsh with background info .243 .389 .580 1.000

X5: Age -.006 .049 .102 .126 1.000 X6: (Subtle with background

info vs. Subtle humor) × Age .948 .585 .380 .210 -.014 1.000

X7: (Subtle humor vs. News item) × Age .577 .945 .615 .339 .062 .598 1.000

X8: (News item vs. Harsh humor) × Age .382 .627 .944 .521 .092 .389 .652 1.000

X9: (Harsh humor vs. Harsh with background info) × Age .222 .365 .550 .938 .133 .216 .364 .559 1.000

X10: Existing preference (against vs. favoring budget cuts)

.019 .042 .084 .038 -.038 .002 .006 .071 .031 1.000

X11: (Subtle with background info vs. Subtle humor) × Pref. -.348 -.232 -.183 -.101 -.047 -.366 -.225 -.182 -.102 -.059 1.000

X12: (Subtle humor vs. News item) × Preference -.220 -.338 -.269 -.148 -.115 -.216 -.345 -.281 -.159 .007 .572 1.000

X13: (News item vs. Harsh humor) × Preference -.171 -.265 -.379 -.208 -.063 -.169 -.271 -.369 -.205 -.064 .418 .721 1.000

X14: (Harsh humor vs. Harsh with background info) × Pref. -.086 -.133 -.189 -.373 -.058 -.082 -.132 -.175 -.357 -.078 .260 .446 .622 1.000

X15: Concentration -.042 -.047 .000 .036 .098 -.048 -.068 .026 .032 .026 -.010 .051 .066 .106 1.000 X16: Focus on story .010 -.029 -.002 -.009 .085 -.028 -.063 .019 -.041 -.025 -.142 -.041 .038 .085 .406 1.000

X17: Perceived funniness .129 .114 -.037 .002 -.039 .172 .142 .005 .032 -.067 -.128 -.108 -.017 .099 .182 .050 1.000 X18: Counterarguing .178 .201 .229 .163 -.123 .193 .205 .230 .198 .208 -.048 -.072 -.115 -.134 -.113 -.174 .145 1.000

X19: Good idea -.083 -.049 -.018 -.002 -.179 -.063 -.044 .000 .013 .398 .002 -.050 -.074 -.066 -.006 -.061 .077 .229 1.000 X20: Acceptable -.018 -.032 -.022 .001 -.214 .003 -.024 -.007 .011 .347 -.012 -.011 -.049 -.073 .004 -.102 .023 .173 .878 1.000

X21: Sensible -.068 -.067 -.015 .001 -.170 -.051 -.060 .005 .009 .365 .013 -.071 -.101 -.084 -.028 -.098 .061 .207 .913 .851 1.000

Mean (M) 0.009 0.003 0.001 0.017 40.623 0.331 0.456 0.734 1.378 -0.910 0.010 0.047 0.099 0.019 5.580 5.930 3.530 -0.519 -1.112 -0.545 -0.996

Standard deviation (SD) 0.407 0.491 0.491 0.387 14.059 17.396 21.264 2.811 15.606 2.417 0.988 1.263 1.284 1.096 2.488 2.709 3.030 0.985 2.967 2.864 2.872

141

English summary Television is still people’s major source of news by far. How political issues are covered on television and reach citizens is, therefore, of great importance for the functioning of democracy. With the great number of media options people currently have, citizens increasingly tune out from the traditional news media – newspapers and regular news broadcasts – and instead have turned to more entertaining alternatives. Think, for example, of “soft news” coverage that relies on personalized narratives behind larger political issues or opinionated news that explicitly includes the opinion of the journalist. Additionally, not only has news become more entertaining over time, entertainment has also turned more political. This is called infotainment. Hence, citizens can get in touch with political matters without actually watching news programs.

Claims have regularly been made that such entertaining ways of dealing with politics in the media may undermine the quality of the democratic process. This view, however, ignores that the traditional news media’s method of dealing with politics – serious, factual, and rational – is far from perfect as well when considered from democratic ideals. This is evidenced by the ever-existing lack of democratic engagement and political knowledge among a large share of the population; even in times when the serious media still had a monopoly on political news coverage.

A democracy that does not only want the elite to politically participate may become accessible to more citizens by complementing the rationalist style with more diverse ways of presenting politics in the public sphere. This traditional manner of communication only suits the knowledge and skills of a relatively small group of citizens and leaves most people in the dark about politics. For a popular inclusion in the public sphere, the latter should be open to a range of styles, modes, and topics that match the capacities, experiences, and interests of non-elite citizens. An entertainment approach toward producing news can make obscure political topics relevant for a broader but initially uninterested audience and may thus play a democratizing role.

To investigate the consequences of soft news and infotainment for democracy, this dissertation explores whether and how these new news genres contribute to the formation of public opinion. Therefore, it investigates the effects on political attitude formation of the three most prominent entertainment-oriented styles of political television coverage: (1) human interest framing that is used to make news coverage more personal; (2) opinionated news that explicitly includes

142

the opinions of the reporting journalists; and (3) political satire, the most prominent entertainment genre (comedy) that adopted politics. In this manner, both the developing nature of non-traditional news coverage and the incorporation of politics into entertainment programming are included.

To investigate whether and how exposure to these entertaining news formats causes attitude formation, three experiments have been conducted. Experiments are the most advantageous method for the study of media effects, because experiments allow for a strict control over the content to which participants are exposed. Hence, exactly those features that are particular for soft news and infotainment could be manipulated and their effects could be investigated by comparing it to (traditional) news coverage without these features. Stimuli for the experiments were manipulated in ways that similar information was provided but in styles that varied on the degree of being entertaining. The stimuli were crafted with the help of a professional voice-over and, for the last study, purposefully made by the producer of a satire program that is broadcasted on national television every weekday.

The first empirical study focused on how human interest framing within television news influenced the formation of political attitudes. A news story with a human interest frame explains a broader (political) issue by portraying one or more people who are personally involved with that issue. News about “hard” political topics is frequently softened in news broadcasts by personalizing these issues; in this manner, audiences can more easily understand these abstract topics and identify with the actors that are involved.

This study on human interest-framed news showed that framing news in a way that highlights personal consequences caused people to attribute responsibility to the government for the issue that is covered: The people who saw a mother argue against a ADHD health care policy reform that would hurt her child believed more strongly that the government should take care of this issue than people who saw a politician argue against this plain. The attribution of responsibility to the government subsequently negatively influenced citizens’ support for this plan.

The second experiment investigated how opinionated news affects the political attitudes of people. Opinionated news deviates from traditional news, even more than human interest-framed news, by moving away from journalistic standards such as objectivity, fairness, and accuracy. Although these television shows by-and-large still label their products as “news” (e.g., FoxNews), opinionated news would arguably be better considered a form of political entertainment.

ENGLISH SUMMARY 143

The experiment showed that opinionated news positively affected citizens’ attitudes toward the widening of a highway through “the influence of presumed influence.” This means that viewers believe others are positively impacted by opinionated news and subsequently tend to follow how they believed others think about this subject. However, the opinionated news item also simultaneously negatively impacted the attitude by evoking emotions of anger through hostile media perceptions. The latter occurred, in particular, for people with left-wing political preferences because they perceived relatively more bias in the content of the opinionated right-wing news source.

The third and last experiment illustrates how political satire affects political attitudes. Compared with human interest framed-news and opinionated news, political satire deviates the most from traditional forms of news coverage, and satirists accept this outright by labeling their content as “fake news” and denying to (want to) have any influence on the political process. Yet, this study finds that satire actually has an influence on the political attitudes of its viewers, especially the younger ones.

Because satire, just as other entertainment forms, naturally draws the attention of viewers by absorbing them in the message, the audience’s capacity to critically evaluate the persuasive message is reduced. This absorption was particularly the case for younger adults. Hence, their attitude is easily swayed with the satire’s message. However, the study also showed that participants discounted the credibility of the message, which counterbalanced the negative effect on the attitude toward the satirized subject. The reason for this is that satire is perceived as funnier than regular news coverage. However, the satire was not perceived to be funny by those who had political preferences that were incongruent with the humorous message; though this was only the case for people who were provided with background information, so they could more easily be aware of the incongruence between their existing opinion and the satirical message they saw.

The conclusion, thus, seems justified that soft news and infotainment do not damage the public sphere in terms of its ability to let citizens form political attitudes. Instead, by personalizing political matters, tailoring opinionated coverage to viewers’ political preference, or adding a humoristic layer, news content most likely becomes more attractive for citizens who normally would not be engaged with politics. The three empirical studies in this dissertation found mechanisms that imply that citizens indeed formed political attitudes after exposure to the stimuli. In times in which people have increasingly tuned out from the traditional

144

news, soft news and infotainment may attract those who otherwise might be lost to democracy and allow them to form political attitudes. This will help democracy to function well, as it is essential that a large share of the citizenry is following political matters and holds political attitudes, so they can engage in political discussions and express their viewpoints.

145

Nederlandse samenvatting Televisie is nog steeds verreweg de belangrijkste bron van nieuws voor de meeste burgers. Hoe de berichtgeving over politieke onderwerpen er op televisie uitziet is daarom van groot belang voor de manier waarop de democratie functioneert. Door het grote media-aanbod van tegenwoordig zijn veel minder mensen de traditionele nieuwsmedia (kranten en televisiejournaals) gaan volgen. Daarentegen zijn er entertainende alternatieven in opmars. Denk bijvoorbeeld aan “soft news” verslaggeving die zich vooral richt op persoonlijke verhalen achter het nieuws (bijv. Hart van Nederland of EditieNL) of opiniërend nieuws dat nadrukkelijk de mening van de journalist naar voren schuift (bijv. PowNews). Niet alleen zijn er meer van zulke soorten “soft news” bijgekomen; entertainmentprogramma’s zijn zich tegelijkertijd namelijk in toenemende mate gaan richten op politieke zaken. Dit wordt infotainment genoemd. Als gevolg kunnen burgers nu ook met de politiek in aanraking komen zonder daadwerkelijk de serieuze nieuwsmedia te volgen. Vaak wordt verondersteld dat deze vermakelijke manieren waarop media met de politiek omgaan de kwaliteit van het democratische proces in gevaar brengen. Een dergelijke veronderstelling ziet echter over het hoofd dat de traditionele manier waarop de media verslag doen van de politiek – serieus, feitelijk, en rationeel – ook verre van perfect is als je het beschouwt vanuit democratische idealen. Er is namelijk altijd een gebrek geweest aan kennis over en betrokkenheid bij de politiek onder het brede publiek. Dit was ook het geval toen de serieuze nieuwsmedia nog een monopolie hadden op de politieke berichtgeving. Wanneer we streven naar een democratie waarin niet alleen de elite meedoet aan de politiek zal het mogelijk moeten zijn om op andere manieren deel te nemen aan het publieke debat dan alleen op een rationele en onpersoonlijke wijze. Deze traditionele manier van communiceren sluit alleen aan op de kennis en capaciteiten van een relatief kleine groep burgers en laat veel mensen onbewogen. Voor een bredere betrokkenheid bij de politiek moet het daarom mogelijk zijn om te communiceren in de stijl en over de onderwerpen die aansluiten bij de belevingswereld van het grote publiek. “Soft news” en infotainment nieuwsverslaggeving kan goed op dit ideaal aansluiten, omdat dit abstracte politieke onderwerpen relevant kan maken voor een breder en aanvankelijk ongeïnteresseerd publiek. Zo kan entertainment dus een democratiserende rol spelen in de maatschappij. Om de bijdrage van “soft news” en infotainment aan de democratie te bestuderen wordt in deze dissertatie onderzocht of en hoe deze soorten van

146

nieuws de vorming van de publieke opinie beïnvloeden. Daartoe wordt onderzocht welke effecten de drie meest prominente vormen van entertainment-georiënteerde nieuwsvormen hebben op politieke attitudes: (1) nieuws dat op een human-interest manier wordt geframed, (2) opiniërend nieuws dat expliciet de mening van de journalist naar voren brengt, en (3) satire als het meest opvallende voorbeeld van entertainmentprogramma’s waarin politieke onderwerpen aan bod komen. Op deze manier worden zowel de entertainisering van politieke nieuwsverslaggeving als de toenemende aandacht voor politieke zaken van entertainmentprogramma’s meegenomen in de onderzoeksopzet van de dissertatie. Om te onderzoeken hoe deze nieuwsgenres de vorming van politieke attitudes beïnvloeden zijn drie experimenten uitgevoerd. Experimenteel onderzoek is de methode waarmee media-effecten het beste te bestuderen zijn, omdat met experimenten door willekeurige toewijzing aan condities goed gecontroleerd kan worden aan welke media-inhoud mensen zijn blootgesteld en de invloed van bestaande meningen grotendeels kan worden uitgesloten. Voor de studies van dit proefschrift zijn nauwkeurig bepaalde aspecten van nieuwsverslaggeving gemanipuleerd die kenmerkend zijn voor “soft news” en infotainment. Vervolgens werd vastgesteld hoe mensen reageerden op nieuws met deze kenmerken en nieuws zonder deze kenmerken (regulier nieuws). De video’s waaraan mensen werden blootgesteld zijn vervaardigd met de hulp van een professionele journalist en, voor het laatste experiment, met de maker van de populaire LuckyTV-filmpjes Sander van de Pavert. Het eerste onderzoek focust zich op de vraag hoe human-interest- geframed nieuws in het NOS Journaal de politieke attitudes van kijkers beïnvloedt. Een nieuwsitem met een human-interest-frame legt een (politiek) onderwerp met de hulp van een concreet voorbeeld van één of meerdere personen die persoonlijk betrokken zijn bij dit onderwerp. Op deze manier kunnen “harde” politieke onderwerpen “verzacht” worden, zodat mensen zich kunnen identificeren met de personen in het item. Als gevolg daarvan zullen deze abstracte onderwerpen relevanter lijken voor het publiek en gemakkelijker te begrijpen zijn. Deze studie naar human-interest-framing heeft aangetoond dat zulk gepersonaliseerd nieuws ervoor zorgt dat kijkers meer verantwoording voor politieke problemen aan de regering toewijzen dan aan de getroffen personen. De proefpersonen die een negatieve reactie van een moeder zagen in een nieuwsitem over het voorgenomen plan van de regering om de vergoeding van ADHD-medicijnen te korten hadden sterker de gedachte dat door ADHD veroorzaakte

NEDERLANDSE SAMENVATTING 147

problemen de verantwoordelijkheid zijn van de regering dan van de betrokken individuen. Proefpersonen die een ongepersonaliseerd, regulier nieuwsitem zagen met daarin een vergelijkbare negatieve reactie van een politicus in plaats van de moeder beschouwden de overheid relatief minder verantwoordelijk voor deze problemen. Hoe mensen de verantwoordelijkheid voor dit probleem toekenden had vervolgens weer een sterke invloed op hoezeer mensen het bezuinigingsplan van de regering steunden of afkeurden. Het tweede experiment onderzocht hoe opiniërende nieuwsverslaggeving (PowNews) de politieke attitudes van mensen beïnvloedt. Opiniërend nieuws wijkt af van traditioneel nieuws, nog veel meer dan human-interest-geframed nieuws, door zich niet te houden aan journalistieke principes als objectiviteit, accuraatheid, en hoor en wederhoor. Hoewel zulke media zichzelf doorgaans graag betitelen als “nieuws” (denk aan FoxNews of PowNews) wordt in deze dissertatie beargumenteerd dat deze vorm van journalistiek beter begrepen kan worden als een vorm van politieke entertainment. Het experiment toonde aan dat kijkers meegaan met de (positieve) mening van de PowNews-journalist over de verbreding van snelweg A27 door een “invloed van een veronderstelde invloed.” Dit betekent dat proefpersonen na het zien van het opiniërende nieuwsitem dachten dat andere mensen hierdoor positief beïnvloed zouden worden en vervolgens de neiging hadden om de mening van deze mensen te volgen. Echter wekte de subjectiviteit van het nieuwsitem bij veel proefpersonen zoveel wrevel dat hun attitude tegelijkertijd ook negatief beïnvloed werd. Dit was voornamelijk het geval met mensen die een linkse politieke voorkeur hebben en daarom waarschijnlijk een slechte impressie hadden van PowNews of het gewoon oneens waren met dit specifieke item. De attitude van deze groep mensen werd door de gelijktijdige positieve en negatieve invloed gemiddeld genomen niet beïnvloed. Het derde en laatste experiment illustreert hoe politieke satire (LuckyTV) de attitude van kijkers kan beïnvloeden. Vergeleken met de andere twee onderzochte nieuwsgenres wijkt satire het meeste af van traditionele nieuwsverslaggeving. De makers ervan zijn het hiermee meestal volkomen eens en ontkennen vaak enige invloed te (willen) hebben op het politieke proces. Toch vindt deze studie dat satire wel degelijk een invloed kan hebben op de politieke attitudes van vooral jongere mensen als je het vergelijkt met regulier nieuws.

Omdat satire, net zoals veel andere vormen van entertainment, de kijker opzuigt in het verhaal heeft het publiek een verminderd kritische vermogen om de

148

boodschap van het item te weerspreken. Vergeleken met traditionele nieuwsverslaggeving lijkt dit vooral het geval onder jongeren (<30 jaar). Ouderen daarentegen leken juist meer op te gaan in de traditionele vorm van nieuwsverslaggeving en werden dus minder beïnvloed door de satire. Net als in de studie met opiniërend nieuws werd hier echter ook een tegenwerkende invloed gevonden. Naarmate mensen de satire grappiger vonden bleken zij de boodschap minder serieus te nemen en werden hun attitudes minder sterk of helemaal niet beïnvloed. Niet alle mensen vonden de satire echter grappig. Proefpersonen die het qua inhoudelijke boodschap oneens waren met het LuckyTV-filmpje (er moet niet bezuinigd worden op de publieke omroep) en van tevoren een artikel hadden gelezen over dit onderwerp waren zich waarschijnlijk bewust van dit verschil van inzicht en vonden het filmpje daarom niet leuk.

Op basis van deze drie studies lijkt de conclusie gerechtvaardigd dat “soft news” en infotainment geen schade toebrengen aan het functioneren van de democratie, maar burgers juist de mogelijkheid bieden om politieke attitudes te ontwikkelen. Door politieke onderwerpen te personaliseren, nieuws vergezeld te laten gaan van de opinie van de journalist, of door een satirische laag over het nieuws aan te brengen wordt de politiek aantrekkelijker om te volgen voor mensen die zich normaliter niet betrokken voelen bij de politiek. De drie experimenten vonden verschillende mechanismen die impliceren dat burgers na het zien van vermakelijke vormen van politieke verslaggeving daadwerkelijk politieke attitudes (verder) ontwikkelen.

In de huidige tijd waarin mensen minder dagbladen lezen en minder vaak naar televisiejournaals kijken kunnen de onderzochte alternatieven voor de serieuze nieuwsmedia mogelijke “afvalligen” betrokken houden bij de democratie en hen toch enigszins politieke attitudes laten vormen. Dit zal een concrete bijdrage leveren aan het functioneren van de democratie, want dit politieke systeem werkt beter naarmate meer burgers de politiek volgen en daardoor politieke attitudes hebben, zodat zij zich kunnen mengen in discussies over de politiek en hun voorkeuren kunnen uiten.

149

Acknowledgements Completing a PhD project and writing a dissertation is not an easy task, and without the help, support and the companionship of so many great people, this would have been a much harder endeavor. It is difficult to name them all, and that is also why I do not try to do so, but some I want to thank in particular. First, the members of the dissertation committee: Professors Hans Beentjes, Kees Brants, Lance Holbert, Peter Neijens, and Liesbet van Zoonen. All of them have written work that initially inspired me to apply for this project and helped me make sense of the concepts of soft news and infotainment. I am therefore very honored and grateful that they were willing to be part of the committee that assessed this dissertation.

Thanks to my team of supervisors: Hajo Boomgaarden, Marjolein Moorman, and Claes de Vreese. Even though they all had a very busy schedule over the three years the project lasted, their thorough feedback on my overambitious experimental designs, manuscripts-in-progress, and writing style has been invaluable. And in times with setbacks and moody reviewers, their support has always kept my spirit up, and their promise that everything would be alright has become more than true.

Hajo has been my supervisor from the first day in the Research Master and actually introduced me to the field of Political Communication, something which I have not regretted a single day. My growth as a researcher is very much thanks to him. I sincerely hope that the completion of this PhD together with Hajo’s move to the University of Vienna can be the beginning of a new cooperation.

I want to thank Marjolein for her critical view on my work, which always stimulated me to sharpen my arguments, look beyond the political communication literature, and convince the reader and critical reviewers. Moreover, she introduced her husband Harmen van der Veen to me, who also deserves a special mention here, as he is the journalist who took hours of his free time to professionally record the voice-overs of the first two studies.

Finally, I want to thank Claes for guiding and helping me to take the right decisions, the trust he showed, and the responsibility he gave during the project, which eventually has made me a much more self-confident researcher and person.

Being part of the ASCoR family has been a great pleasure and privilege. The facilities to work, set up studies, and conduct experiments were fantastic. Moreover, travelling to conferences and workshops has brought me to places such

150

as Odense, Leuven, Phoenix, Oxford, London, Seattle and even Rotterdam. This trips have not only enlightened me intellectually and gave me the opportunity to meet inspiring colleagues, but also brought me into the weirdest situations and made me meet amazing (non-academic) people as Katherine Vargas and Ojong Martin.

My roommates in the Bushuis made it a pleasure to come to work every day. The first year, I shared an office with the friendly Annemiek Linn, Hanneke Hendriks, and Nadine Bol with whom I am already following the same track since the very first course in the Bachelor Communication Science at the University of Amsterdam in 2006. After one year, I moved downstairs to a room with equally friendly colleagues but who also share an interest in Political Communication: Judith Möller, Sabine Geers, Jelle Boumans, and Jasper van de Pol. I really enjoyed the (social) environment of C.004 and have appreciated all the support you gave in finishing this project.

Of course, all of my colleagues in the PolComm/CorpComm PhD Club and its conveners also deserve a big shout out. Their feedback on my papers and all the discussions we have had over theory and research methods have contributed much to my development over the last three years. Also all the other colleagues from the Political Communication department in particular and UvA Communication Science generally who ever lend a helping hand or listening ear, thank you for your time and efforts.

Wouter de Nooy, Marcel van Egmond, and Wouter Weeda were very important for me by answering all kinds of questions about statistics and ways to do good and responsible research. They were always willing to invest time and effort in the ideas I had, and let me reflect on the methods of social science.

Speaking about methods, someone that played a crucial role in the development of stimuli of the last study is Sander van de Pavert, who is known from his LuckyTV-videos. I did not expect much of the e-mail in which I asked him for the possibilities to make stimuli for this project. I thought that, if he would already react, his price would be probably completely out of reach. But when he reacted, he proposed to participate completely voluntarily simply because Sander thought it was an interesting project. Besides delivering the greatest stimuli I could imagine for an experimental study to the effects of satire, Sander’s help taught me that nothing is impossible as long as you try it.

Huge thanks goes to my parents, Wietse and Marion Boukes, and brother Bart; without their support I would never have reached it until here. From my

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 151

youngest days they gave me the freedom to do what I like to do and shaped the perfect conditions to develop myself. It was in their proximity where I revealed myself as a true television terrorist, and developed my love for everything what has to do media and news. I am happy that this dissertation is the proof that all the time I occupied the television served a good cause. It was therefore a beautiful symbolic end of this PhD track to have finished it by working on it the last two months from their house.

There is one person who deserves the biggest thank you for the support I got during the last years, and that is of course my girlfriend Shuiqin. Qina, thanks so much for all the patience, the love, the laughs, the understanding when I skipped another weekend, and apologies for all the times I was home late, tired, moody, and stressed. Her support motivated me to make the best out of this project, and with Shuiqin on my side I can ride through any storm and sunny spring weather that may come on our way.

Finally, I want to shortly look ahead and thank Rens Vliegenthart for the opportunity to become part of his ambitious Veni-project “Media Coverage as a Catalyst for Economic Crises?” as a postdoctoral researcher. I have already known Rens as student when he was my teacher and I was his student assistant, and am very much looking forward to work the coming period on this exciting new topic.

Any shortcomings in the dissertation are, of course, entirely my responsibility. Mark Boukes, Amsterdam, November 2014.

152