Candidates' use of humor in interviews across talk-show sub genres in the 2016 presidential election
Date
2016
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of Delaware
Abstract
The increased fragmentation of media outlets over the past several decades has made it difficult for political candidates to reach less politically-engaged citizens (Prior, 2007). With evolving journalistic norms that focus increasingly on the journalist and the medium over the substance of political campaigns, presidential candidates seek less filtered ways to communicate with voters (Clayman 2002; Hallin, 1992). Literature also points to the rise of personalization in political reporting, including less focus on parties and more demand for unscripted candidate talk and access to previously private aspects of politicians’ lives. (Rahat & Sheafer 2007; Van Aelst, Sheaffer, & Stanyer, 2012). To address these changes and challenges, candidates have sought out unconventional methods of audience outreach, including appearances on entertainment-oriented talk shows (Parkin 2014). Importantly, the sub-genres of entertainment talk shows (daytime, late-night, and satire) vary both in goals and audience characteristics, and as a result, in both content and emphasis. Hence, we should expect the nature of these candidate interviews and candidates’ strategic use of certain rhetorical devices to vary across these sub-genres as well. In this project we explore candidates’ use of humor, a rhetorical device that candidates use to increase their favorability and appear more personal or authentic (Stewart 2011). We look specifically at self-deprecating humor, other-deprecating humor, and the delicate relationship between humor use and candidate / audience gender. By first studying the audiences and goals of these unique talk show subgenres, and the documented functions, uses, and effects of humor in various contexts, we offer hypotheses regarding how the candidates’ use of humor ought to vary across these programs. The project includes a detailed content analysis and accompanying textual analysis of all candidate interviews across four genres of programming during the primary campaign from December 1, 2015 through March 1, 2016. Programs examined include three more traditional news-oriented broadcasts ( NBC Nightly News, The O’Reilly Factor, Rachel Maddow), daytime talk shows (Ellen, The View, The Talk), late-night comedy shows (The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel Live), and political satire shows ( The Daily Show with Trevor Noah, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, and The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore). The coding scheme captures self and other-deprecating humor, as well as all references to policy (both foreign and domestic), the sex of the interviewee and interviewer, and the candidates’ political parties. Results are contextualized in terms of humor theory, the relationship between gender and both humor use and appreciation, and the role of personalization in contemporary political life. By examining candidates’ uses of humor across talk shows during the 2016 presidential primaries, we can witness not only how candidates conceptualize humor as a strategic device, but how the fragmented media landscape facilitates distinct appeals to distinct audiences.