No Laughing Matter: A Textual Analysis of
The Media Response to Stephen Colbertʼs SuperPAC
Zachary Bernstein
A Capstone Project
Presented to the Faculty of the School of Communication in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts in Public Communication
Supervisor: Prof. Lauren Feldman
April 25, 2013
1
Copyright ©
2013
Zachary Bernstein
All rights reserved.
To obtain permission to use material from this work,
please submit a written request via email to: zach.d.bernstein@gmail.com.
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
!
Special thanks are due to American University professor Lauren Feldman, my
capstone advisor. Her knowledge of the subject, as well as her suggestions and edits to
this capstone throughout the entire process, were invaluable.
!
Thanks are also due to Alessandra Prosper, Meghan Sweeney, and Jing Wu, the
other members of my peer review group, who also reviewed my drafts throughout the
process and whose suggestions were also helpful.
!
Lastly, I want to thank my friends and family for putting up with me talking about
the capstone.
3
ABSTRACT
The Supreme Courtʼs 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
led to the creation of “independent expenditure-only committees,” also known as
SuperPACs, which can take in unlimited amounts of money from donors and spend that
to support candidates for federal office. In response, comedian Stephen Colbert, host
of the Comedy Central program The Colbert Report, formed his own SuperPAC in 2011,
using it as a means to critique changes to the campaign finance system post-Citizens
United. This study presents the results of a textual analysis of media coverage of
Colbert SuperPAC in three national U.S. newspapers, as well as twelve blogs, six each
representing liberal and conservative viewpoints. Among the findings, (a) the
mainstream papers and liberal blogs studied were more complimentary of Colbertʼs
efforts; (b) the conservative blogs were more generally negative and actually covered
Colbert SuperPAC less; (c) coverage from all three groups did focus on some common
events, but the opinionated blogs in particular reported on different stories that fit their
narratives and ignored other events that did not. These results offer more support for
the power of political entertainment to inform the public as well as other media sources,
as well as the power of comedians like Colbert to drive discussions on both public policy
and the news agenda.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction.....................................................................................................................6
Literature Review..........................................................................................................12
The Colbert Report, The Daily Show, and “Fake News”................................................12
The Impact of Humor on Messaging..............................................................................16
Prior Research on Colbert SuperPAC............................................................................17
The Theory of Framing..................................................................................................19
The Theory of Agenda-Setting.......................................................................................22
Methods.........................................................................................................................26
Results...........................................................................................................................29
Section I: The Mainstream Media..................................................................................29
Concerns About Colbert and the Federal Election Commission...................................29
The Op-Ed Pages: No Cheerleading Section...............................................................31
Overall Positive Reaction to Colbert SuperPAC...........................................................32
Embedded Video Clips.................................................................................................35
Section II: Liberal blogs.................................................................................................35
Colbertʼs Trip To The FEC, And Its “Serious Ramifications”.........................................35
Broad Support for Colbert SuperPAC, Opposition To Citizens United..........................37
Hyping The SuperPAC..................................................................................................40
Embedded Video Clips.................................................................................................41
Section III: Conservative blogs......................................................................................41
Agenda-Setting At Work? Fewer Articles Written By Conservative Blogs.....................41
Mixed Reaction On First Colbert SuperPAC Ad............................................................43
Generally Negative Coverage From Conservative Blogs.............................................43
Did Colbert Prove Citizens United Was The Right Decision?.......................................45
Differences In Coverage Among Conservative Blogs...................................................47
Embedded Video Clips.................................................................................................48
Discussion.....................................................................................................................48
Limitations.....................................................................................................................54
Conclusion....................................................................................................................56
References.....................................................................................................................58
Appendix: Articles For Textual Analysis..........................................................................63
Washington Post............................................................................................................63
New York Times.............................................................................................................64
Los Angeles Times.........................................................................................................65
Liberal blogs..................................................................................................................66
Liberal blog articles excluded from study.......................................................................68
Conservative blogs........................................................................................................69
5
INTRODUCTION
!
How much of a role should money play in our political system? That question
has vexed Americans for decades, if not longer. It is easy to make the case that money
is necessary for victory in our political system, even if it does not guarantee a win.
Advertisements can introduce a candidate to a wider audience - or, perhaps more
frequently, attack his or her opponent. Direct mailings serve as a more targeted pitch to
voters. Office space, staff, infrastructure, travel - all of it costs money. Those costs can
accumulate quickly, especially for statewide or national elections. And while people
ultimately vote for the candidate, not the war chest that candidate possesses, winning
without money can be a daunting prospect.
!
Fully three-quarters of Americans believe that there is too much money in
politics, encompassing majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents,
according to one Reuters poll (Newsmax.com, 2012). To some extent, Americans may
not understand exactly how much money is in politics. For example, one 2005
experiment asked respondents how much money, on average, incumbent candidates
for seats in the House of Representatives spent in elections. The median estimate the
respondents gave was $1.1 million; the actual median dollar figure was $400,000
(Ansolabehere, Snowberg & Snyder, 2005). Still, regardless of how accurate their
perceptions are, Americans are nonetheless concerned about how much is being spent
to win elections.
!
One reason for that concern is the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission, decided by the Supreme Court in January of 2010. The case centered
6
around the eponymous conservative organization, which wanted to run a pay-per-view
documentary attacking then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and run
ads to promote it within 30 days of a primary election. Under the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act (BCRA), passed in 2002 and colloquially known as “McCain-Feingold” as a
reference to its Senate sponsors, that would have been illegal.
!
Citizens United struck down much of BCRA, paving the way for some
independent expenditures - meaning any political spending (usually, though not
necessarily only, advertisements) not done in coordination with, in this case, a
candidate for federal office - paid for by corporations or unions out of their general
treasury funds. The five justices in the majority in this decision wrote that restricting
those expenditures was “an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is
a ban notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a
PAC [Political Action Committee] is a separate association from the
corporation” (Citizens United v. FEC, p.3, brackets added).
!
The New York Timesʼ Adam Liptak (2010) wrote after the decision that the
majority side included “the four members of the courtʼs conservative wing,” referring to
Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas,
and Samuel Alito, though the decision itself was written by Associate Justice Anthony
Kennedy, often seen as the Supreme Courtʼs “swing vote.” Liptak also wrote that
Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the dissenting opinion, was joined “by the other
three members of the courtʼs liberal wing,” meaning Associate Justices Stephen Breyer,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor.
7
!
The Supreme Courtʼs decision in Citizens United overturned several prior
precedents, and marked a significant shift in the Courtʼs thinking on campaign finance
law. As Gilpatrick (2011) noted, “Not only does the [Citizens United] ruling mark the first
time the Roberts Court has overturned a campaign finance precedent, but it also
indicates that the current Court is wary of, if not openly hostile to, certain forms of
campaign finance regulation” (p.412).
!
While some of the early concern focused on corporate spending - Liptak (2010)
noted that President Barack Obama called the decision “a major victory for big oil, Wall
Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal
their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans” - it
is not entirely clear how much of their general treasury funds corporations used to fund
political activities during the 2012 election cycle, especially considering that some
groups which ran ads in this election cycle, specifically 501(c)(4) “social welfare”
organizations, do not have to disclose their donors; those groups in particular are
covered by tax law instead of campaign finance law and are limited in how much they
can spend to influence elections.1
!
Instead, the most noticeable change stemmed from a decision that came two
months later, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit handed
down its decision in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission (2010), using
Citizens United as the basis. That case paved the way for the creation of so-called
1
By contrast, seeing a statistic that says “company x donated y dollars to candidate z” does not usually
refer to general treasury dollars, but rather contributions of the companyʼs employees and perhaps its
affiliated PAC, both of which must be reported by the candidate who receives them if the contribution is
$200 or more. As noted before, a PAC is not technically a part of the company that it is affiliated with, but
sites that track political spending, such as OpenSecrets, include those PAC contributions with those made
by the companyʼs employees when determining how much a company has “spent.”
8
“independent expenditure-only committees,” which are more widely known as
SuperPACs.
!
While the Citizens United decision is a controversial one, there is no denying that
it has changed the political landscape, at least in terms of how much money there is in
elections. By some estimates, about $6 billion was spent on the 2012 elections, setting
a new record by more than $700 million. Those estimates predicted that outside
spending would account for $970 million of the total figure, most of that from
SuperPACs (OpenSecrets.org, 2012). While the balance of power in the federal
government did not shift significantly in the 2012 cycle - the House, Senate and
presidency remained in the hands of their respective parties, with only small shifts in
terms of the composition of the legislature - there is no guarantee that future elections
will see the same sort of outcome.
!
The response to the Citizens United decision has varied, but perhaps the most
unusual reaction came from comedian Stephen Colbert. Since 2005, Colbert has
hosted his own television program, The Colbert Report, on Comedy Central, a network
owned by media company Viacom. Colbertʼs “character” on the show is a rabidly
conservative pundit, meant to satirize TV personalities such as Bill OʼReilly and Joe
Scarborough (Peyser, 2006). The Colbert Report is a spinoff of The Daily Show, which
Jon Stewart has anchored since 1999 and where Colbert had previously worked as a
faux-correspondent. Both programs feature the hosts discussing current news events,
as well as interviews with newsmakers and celebrities.
!
Colbert talked about the Citizens United case as early as September of 2009,
four months before the decision was handed down. On the September 15, 2009
9
episode of The Colbert Report, he devoted his “The Word” segment, itself a parody of
OʼReillyʼs “Talking Points” segment on Fox Newsʼ The OʼReilly Factor, to discussing the
case and prior campaign finance law. “Corporations are legally people,” he said in
character. “And it makes sense, folks. They do everything people do, except breed,
die, and go to jail for dumping 1.3 million pounds of PCBs into the Hudson River,” as
General Electricʼs logo was displayed, referring to the companyʼs dumping of
polychlorinated biphenyls between 1947 and 1977.
!
In response to the Supreme Courtʼs ruling in Citizens United and the creation of
SuperPACs, Colbert formed his own SuperPAC in 2011. Formally known as “Americans
for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow” (but more commonly referred to, including in this
paper, as Colbert SuperPAC), it performed many of the same functions as regular
SuperPACs, such as collecting contributions and running advertisements, until its
dissolution in November 2012.2
!
Unlike many other SuperPACs, Colbert SuperPAC was created as a means to
satirize changes in the campaign finance system post-Citizens United. For example, on
the January 17, 2012 episode of The Daily Show, Colbert and Stewart pointed out a
significant loophole in campaign finance law. Despite SuperPACs and candidates being
unable to coordinate legally, the pair proved that the requirement was fairly easy to get
around, as Stewart (then running the SuperPAC while Colbert pursued a mock run for
President) explained what the SuperPAC had been doing with the money Colbert had
helped raise:
!
2
In the interest of full disclosure, and since that is an important component of campaign finance laws, I
had previously contributed to the SuperPAC.
10
!
!
!
!
STEWART: Last night the SuperPAC that supports you - but which I control
independently - ran another ad in South Carolina, at a total production cost of $15,000,
equating a vote for Herman Cain with a vote for Stephen Colbert. Any thoughts on
that...Stephen?
!
!
!
!
!
COLBERT: I cannot coordinate with you in any way. And I havenʼt seen the ad, but when
I watched it, I thought that the final shot of a handsome man smiling could have been a
little bit longer. And with a little color correction, and maybe you couldʼve done
something about the crowʼs feet. But as I say, I have not seen it, Jon. And I cannot
coordinate with you in any way.
!
!
STEWART: Well, I happen to think it looked nice. I mean, it was a very flattering picture
of you.
!
COLBERT: Oh, well, I wouldnʼt know.
!
The pair then asked Trevor Potter, a lawyer with the firm Caplin and Drysdale
who had helped Colbert initially form the SuperPAC, whether anything they had said
was illegal. Calling into the studio, Potter assured them that it was not, despite the fact
that the two were quite literally sitting cheek-to-cheek while having the discussion.
!
The purpose of this study is to examine and compare the media response to
Colbert SuperPAC. Specifically, how did the mainstream media, liberal blogs, and
conservative blogs report on the SuperPAC? For example, did they do report on it as a
worthy attempt to make the public aware of flaws in the campaign finance system, or
was it derided as a quixotic attempt at better ratings? This capstone uses a qualitative
textual analysis of media coverage of Colbert SuperPAC to address these questions.
!
As will be discussed, the media has a great amount of influence on how the
public perceives issues of the day - not only which issues are discussed most heavily
(Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007) but also, potentially, what positions the public will take
(Entman, 1993). In a fragmented media landscape where individuals may self-select
the sources they gather information from (Warner, 2010; Mancini, 2013), it stands to
11
reason that different media outlets could have changed how people viewed Colbert
SuperPAC, which, in turn, bears on their perceptions of Citizens United and campaign
finance reform, more generally. Assessing the nature of the mediaʼs response to
Colbert SuperPAC is a first step to understanding the potential impact of this coverage
on public opinion.
!
This capstone will begin with a review of the relevant literature, specifically as it
relates to satirical news programs like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report; the
impact of humor on messaging; the limited amount of prior research relating to Colbert
SuperPAC; and the theories of framing and agenda-setting. After discussing the
methods of the textual analysis, the discussion will shift to the results, focusing on each
specific type of media outlet individually, and then comparing the coverage of those
outlets against each other. From there, the question of how - or whether - different
media outlets covered Colbert SuperPAC differently will be addressed.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Colbert Report, The Daily Show, and “Fake News”
!
Because Colbert SuperPAC is a relatively recent phenomenon, little research
exists as to its impact on the national discourse, particularly as it pertains to issues of
campaign finance law. The cultural phenomenon - some may refer to it as “fake news” which spawned Colbert SuperPAC is somewhat older; as such, the debate about its
effect on the public discourse and political system has had more time to take root.
12
!
Previous research has demonstrated the impact of Stewart and Colbert on the
political landscape. For example, The Daily Show was shown to impact public
perception of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney during the national party conventions in
2004 (Morris, 2009). Stewart and Colbert hosted a rally “for sanity and/or fear” on the
National Mall in response to Glenn Beck (Baym, Day & Jones, 2012; Placone & Tumolo,
2011). Stewart took members of Congress to task for blocking a bill that would improve
health care for first responders present at Ground Zero during the September 11, 2001
attacks, which some argue contributed to the ultimate success of the so-called “Zadroga
Bill” (Baym, Day & Jones, 2012). As far as Colbert himself is concerned, some research
supports the theory that the “Colbert Bump” - the claim made by Colbert that candidates
who appear on The Colbert Report will see a boost in contributions and thus election
success - might actually exist (Fowler, 2008). One major caveat to that, however, is that
the bump only really seems to help Democrats, and maybe not for a prolonged period.
!
Clearly, Colbert and Stewart are not journalists in the strictest sense, since their
shows are clearly opinionated while journalists are supposed to remain impartial
(Society of Professional Journalists, n.d.). Indeed, many would say a major target of
theirs is the media and, in some cases, journalists - perhaps ironic, considering that “[a]
s a parody of News, TDS constructs itself out of news transmitted by the News,” making
it “necessarily parasitic” even as it potentially “instill[s] faith in [the News]” by using its
content (McKain, 2005, p.416).
!
Stewart and Colbert, however, have never really claimed to be journalists.
Stewart, during his 2004 appearance on CNNʼs “Crossfire,” made the comparison
between himself and that showʼs co-hosts, Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala: “Youʼre on
13
CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls,” even as he
accused the hosts of “partisan hackery.” Similarly, Borden and Tew (2007) agree that
“the role of journalist entails certain moral commitments that do not bind Stewart and
Stephen Colbert...However, we argue they are making a contribution to media ethics by
serving as media critics” (p.301).
!
Some of the concern surrounding shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert
Report is that they trivialize important issues. Hart and Hartelius (2007), for example,
took umbrage with Stewart demonstrating that an individualʼs vote in the 2004
presidential election counted for exactly .000000949% of the final vote count, arguing
that he “[mocked] the democratic ideal which assumes that voting is a worthwhile mode
of participation” (p.265). While Stewart was not wrong on the facts, the authors were
clearly concerned that such a statement might have made his audience apathetic about
political participation.
!
Some in the media have taken this tack as well, among them NBCʼs Chuck Todd,
who claimed Colbert was making “a mockery” of the political system by, among other
things, staging a fake run for President and testifying in character before Congress,
even as he ultimately conceded that “the process is a mess” (Huffington Post, 2012).
!
Supporters of Colbert and Stewart have responded that this is exactly the point -
that cynicism “may come closer than other forms of comedy or commentary to revealing
underlying truths by mirroring them back at cynical actors” (Bennett, 2007, p.280).
Similarly, Dadlez (2011) has argued that these men offer serious criticisms under the
guise of being mere comedians. According to Waisanen (2009), they actually improve
the quality of public discourse by serving as “rhetorical critics” who “care a great deal
14
about analyzing and evaluating communication issues like fallacies, generalities,
important omissions, and how communication should ideally take place between
interlocutors” (p.136).
!
A few have even wondered whether these shows could be a valuable teaching
tool. For example, Staci (2011) notes that viewers of The Daily Show were found to be
more politically knowledgeable than people who got their news from other sources.
Although there is some concern that the show might promote cynicism about the
political process (see also Hart and Hartelius, 2007) and potentially confuse some
poorly-equipped viewers, Staci found that almost none of the students who watched
The Daily Show as part of her study were discouraged from political involvement.
Indeed, during the 2004 presidential primaries, people who watched late-night comedy
shows like The Daily Show and The Tonight Show with Jay Leno also followed the
campaign more closely in more traditional news outlets (Feldman & Young, 2008),
which seems to indicate that exposure to attacks on candidates did not make those
viewers less interested in what was going on in the political arena.
!
Colbert, too, has earned scholarly attention of late. For example, Colbertʼs
neologism “truthiness” - “the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be
true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true," according to Merriam-Webster,
which named it the Word of the Year in 2006 - has served as a rhetorical basis for
articles on topics as diverse as comparisons between blogging and journalism (Munger,
2008) and the rise of the Tea Party (Springs, 2011). While Colbertʼs character, a man
who proudly makes decisions based on his “gut,” might not approve of the endorsement
of thinking men and women, academia has certainly taken notice. With his entry into
15
the campaign finance arena, discussions of Colbert as a media figure - and possibly a
policy critic as well - look to continue.
The Impact of Humor on Messaging
!
It may be hard to say whether Colbertʼs efforts to educate the public on
SuperPACs and the changing campaign finance landscape were “successful,” in the
sense that peoplesʻ minds were changed or action was taken that otherwise would not
have been. However, there is less doubt that he did accomplish one objective, which
was to get attention. Would Colbert have gotten noticed if he had simply stood up and
lectured on screen? Common sense would indicate not - with respect to college
professors everywhere, people donʼt tend to like being lectured to. Humor has a
valuable role to play in messaging, if for no other reason than making people sit up and
take notice of what someone is trying to say.
!
Past research has taken note of that role, on a broad range of issues. Skalski,
Tamborini, Glazer and Smith (2009) found that using humor in a PSA on alcohol abuse
made people less likely to reject the message, compared with a more serious version of
the same PSA. Likewise, Nabi, Moyer-Gusé and Byrne (2007) found that people who
read a more humorous version of a monologue by a comedian made them approve of
the source more and reduced their counterarguments. In that case, however, the
authors also found that respondents were more likely to reject the argument as “just a
joke.” Importantly, though, humor did still offer a path to greater acceptance than a
sober, joyless discussion. Later research by Young (2008) backed up their argument
16
that humor reduced what she termed “critical argument scrutiny” - “that when arguments
are delivered in a humorous way, recipients are less likely to scrutinize the claims
presented” (p.134).
!
However, it would be an oversimplification to say that simply using a joke here
and there will serve a campaign well. Not all humor is created equal, and different types
of humor have been found to yield markedly different results. For example, Holbert,
Young, and Polk (2009) found that more complex humor, such as irony, is especially
likely to reduce message recipientsʼ ability to scrutinize arguments. Becker (2012),
meanwhile, compared multiple clips from the 2008 presidential election - among them,
Republican nominee John McCain playfully mocking his own campaign on Saturday
Night Live; and Stephen Colbert attacking McCain on The Colbert Report. The study
found evidence that more “hostile” humor, such as Colbertʼs, had more of an impact on
evaluations of McCain than the more self-deprecating humor McCain used to try and
win over his audience.
!
Humor, in some ways, is still in the eye of the beholder. LaMarre, Landreville and
Beam (2009) found that political ideology predicted whether individuals felt Colbert was
defending conservatism or parodying it. In this case, individuals who self-identified as
conservatives believed that Colbert really was attacking liberalism, while those selfidentifying as liberals answered that he was indeed using satire to parody the
conservative point of view. (On one point, however, liberals and conservatives agreed both groups found Colbert funny.)
Prior Research on Colbert SuperPAC
17
!
While Colbert SuperPAC only originated recently, and the research community
has not had as much time to discuss it as they have the broader phenomenon of “fake
news,” this would not be the first study to discuss the impact the SuperPAC had on the
national discourse.
!
For example, Day (2013) focused her attention on the ads Colbert SuperPAC
ran, which mostly focused on the election but also ended up touching on the National
Basketball Association (NBA) lockout going on at that time. While Day was skeptical
that the advertisements themselves changed any minds - and indeed cites multiple
individuals who seem to think the ads will be “lost” on those who donʼt watch The
Colbert Report - her analysis finds more support for the idea that the media gained a
prime opportunity to discuss a highly technical subject like campaign finance, one they
might not have had before.
!
LaMarre (2013), meanwhile, found that people who watched Colbertʼs parody of
SuperPACs on the Colbert Report had higher levels of issue knowledge, and were more
supportive of campaign finance reform, than those who watched political talk shows,
such as Morning Joe, where it was being discussed. This suggests “that when political
comedians move beyond the confines of their comedic space they might lose control
over message receptivity” (LaMarre, 2013, p. 408). Both groups were more supportive
of campaign finance reform efforts than a control group, and both clips appeared to
improve issue knowledge for those who viewed them. The effects, however, were more
pronounced when Colbert was calling the shots.
18
!
That prior research helps explain why this capstone, perhaps the first study to
compare media coverage of Colbert SuperPAC across different types of outlets, is so
important. As LaMarre (2013) noted, about half of all 18-to-29 year-olds consider
political satire, like The Colbert Report and The Daily Show, a key source of political
news. That does not mean all of them are able to watch the show every night. But for
everyone who does not watch the show, the potential exists to learn about it in other
media outlets, like the ones that will be considered here. Given that, understanding how
those outlets covered Colbert SuperPAC becomes more important. Because this
capstone will be analyzing media coverage of Colbert SuperPAC, it is important to
examine two theories which can explain the effect the media have on individuals.
Those are the theories of framing and agenda-setting.
The Theory of Framing
!
The theory of framing, according to Scheufele and Tewksbury (2007), “is based
on the assumption that how an issue is characterized in news reports can have an
influence on how it is understood by audiences” (p.11, emphasis added). Put another
way, “[f]raming essentially involves both selection and salience. To frame is to select
some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating
text as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral
evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described” (Entman, 1993, p.
52, emphasis included).
19
!
While framing can be discussed from a mainly public relations perspective, with
“imagemakers” or “spin doctors” attempting to “define reality, at least as it relates to
client organizations, for the many publics on whom the organization
depends” (Hallahan, 1999, p.206), it can just as easily apply to the news media as well.
!
Scheufele and Tewksbury (2007) argue that framing is a crucial part of how an
issue is perceived by the public: “Frames...become invaluable tools for presenting
relatively complex issues...efficiently and in a way that makes them accessible to lay
audiences” (2007, p.12). For example, Nisbet (2009) discussed efforts to frame the
issue of climate change, one which could have far-reaching consequences but is
scientifically complex and thus difficult to explain in a thirty-second sound bite.
!
However, the whole point of framing is that there are multiple ways to interpret
the same issue or data. Nisbet, for example, argued for framing climate change by
making it seem personal and relevant to peoplesʼ lives - using “the perceived
implications for [the publicʼs] daily lives” (p.22) instead of discussing it as an
environmental issue. Both frames are accurate - climate change is an environmental
issue, and it is expected to affect millions, if not billions, of people worldwide. Nisbetʼs
argument was that the public would respond to efforts to slow climate change if they got
the impression, through frames, that it was a personal issue - and conversely, that they
would respond less positively if it was framed as an issue of environmental stability,
which they might consider more removed from their day-to-day lives and thus less
salient to their personal needs.
!
As Entman (1991) argues, “By providing, repeating, and thereby reinforcing
words and visual images that reference some ideas but not others, frames work to
20
make some ideas more salient in the text, others less so - and others entirely
invisible” (p.7). That was Nisbetʼs goal - to make some ideas come through more
clearly than others to encourage people to take action on climate change, which at its
heart is an issue that many Americans do not see affecting them at this moment, if at all.
Indeed, previous studies have found a correlation between persons viewing frames and
responding in a specific way immediately afterwards; while proving causation is always
difficult, the time frame of those studies makes the presence of other variables less
likely to impact subjectsʼ responses, thus offering more evidence for causation if not
outright proof (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2009).
!
This need not only apply to complex issues like climate change. Research has
found that framing an issue like same-sex marriage in a certain way, focusing on
arguments of religious liberty or individual freedom, “did influence the ways that groups
discussed the prospect of legalizing gay partnerships” (Cappella, Nir & Price, 2005, p.
200), at least to some limited extent. That in particular is an issue which can stir
considerable emotion in people across the globe, and so changing viewpoints on the
issue might be more difficult.
!
In the context of campaign finance reform, research shows that framing effects
can lead to a poorly-informed public. In a piece released five years prior to the Citizens
United decision, Ansolabehere, Snowberg and Snyder (2005) took the media specifically newspapers - to task for what they considered shoddy reporting on
campaign finance. Their content analysis found that the media reported on particularly
expensive races for seats in the House of Representatives. When the researchers
asked their subjects to estimate how much a House incumbent spent on average, the
21
median estimate was $1.1 million, “almost exactly what [was] reported on average in the
press. The actual median expenditure of House incumbents came to $400,000 during
the elections under study” (Ansolabehere, Snowberg & Snyder, 2005, p.226). As a
consequence, they argued, while most Americans thought too much money was in
politics, “they do not have a clear understanding of existing regulations or of the amount
of money spent” (p.214). In this case, the authors argue, the media failed in its
responsibility to adequately inform the nation - not through factually incorrect reporting,
but through a focus on a select sample of races that did not explain the full picture.
!
Given the effects of framing on public opinion and perceptions, it is important to
understand how the media have framed their coverage of Colbert SuperPAC. For
example, if the majority of the mainstream mediaʼs coverage of Colbert SuperPAC
framed it in a negative way - say, as a blatant attempt at higher ratings, a quixotic effort
to reform campaign finance law with little to show for it, or, following from Hart and
Hartelius (2007), a buffoonish attack on a system too important to be ridiculed - it stands
to reason that this coverage could have negatively impacted how the general public
viewed Colbert SuperPAC. Similarly, if the media framed Colbert SuperPAC in a
positive way - for example, by lauding it as the most eloquent or unique effort yet to
expose the flaws in the campaign finance system - it could have increased public
support for Colbertʼs initiative, as well as concern over current campaign finance policy.
The Theory of Agenda-Setting
22
!
Agenda-setting, meanwhile, is defined as “the idea that there is a strong
correlation between the emphasis that mass media place on certain issues (e.g., based
on relative placement or amount of coverage) and the importance attributed to these
issues by mass audiences” (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007, p.11). Put another way, if
the media spends more time discussing an issue, the public will view it as a more
pressing matter, regardless of how much it impacts their lives directly. This does not
necessarily mean the media can change how the public thinks about an issue - that
would be where framing becomes important - but by arranging issues in a hierarchy,
they can still impact the content of political discourse.
!
The theory was perhaps most famously tested in North Carolina during the 1968
presidential election. McCombs and Shaw (1972) found support for their hypothesis
that the media was able to influence the public as far as which issues were most
important - while they admitted that their theory was “not proven by the correlations
reported here...the evidence is in line with the conditions that must exist if agendasetting by the mass media does occur” (p.184, emphasis theirs).
!
Since then, more research has been performed on agenda-setting, and much of
it has offered support for McCombs and Shawʼs theories, though to varying degrees.
Interestingly, and perhaps relevant to this study, prior research has not found a
relationship between heavy media coverage of an issue and the level of discussion of
those issues on political blogs (Wallsten, 2007), indicating that agenda-setting may not
impact more politically aware individuals. Other research has found that political
advertisements are less effective at setting the agenda than news coverage (Golan,
Kiousis & McDaniel, 2007).
23
!
To some extent, agenda-setting can also mean focusing on one specific aspect
of a story over others, such as spending more time discussing failed response efforts
after Hurricane Katrina rather than how to prepare for another major storm (Barnes et
al., 2008) or covering the Presidentʼs State of the Union speech with a focus on issues
the public cares about. As Peake and Eshbaugh-Soha (2008) note, “there is a clear
motivation for media to cater to the public as a consumer of television news” (p.118). In
cases where the issue is local, such as the issue of same-sex marriage in Georgia
during the 2004 election, the agenda of local news sources may differ from the agenda
of national news sources (Hester & Gibson, 2007). In that case, media in Atlanta had a
proposed constitutional amendment to focus on, something the national media had less
incentive to report on to potentially uninterested viewers (Hester & Gibson, 2007).
!
One concern!is that the mediaʼs power to set the agenda may cause more
concern over an issue than is appropriate. The anthrax scare weeks after the 9/11
attacks is one example - while only a handful of deaths were linked to the white powder
being sent through the mail, Fahmy and Johnson (2007) note that “[s]ome scholars saw
the anthrax scare as a textbook example of moral panic. The media fanned public
hysteria over the small number of anthrax cases, causing people to believe that every
letter that [sic] received could be lethal” (p.24). The authors argue that the heavy
amount of coverage contributed to the public reaction.
!
Opinionated blogs can likewise take advantage of this, reporting on stories that
suit their arguments and generally ignoring those that do not. In 2009, for example, a
poll found President Obamaʼs approval numbers declining. The Pew Research Centerʼs
Project for Excellence in Journalism found that conservatives pounced on the poll, with
24
one blogger declaring, “Health care may be the final nail in the coffin,” referring to
Obamaʼs Affordable Care Act; another predicted Republicans would control both
chambers of Congress after the 2010 elections. Liberal bloggers, the analysis noted,
“generally stayed on the sidelines of this conversation,” though at least one elected to
frame the story differently, noting that Obamaʼs poll numbers were still 23 points higher
than Republicans in Congress. The mainstream media, meanwhile, devoted the lionʼs
share of its time to discussion of health care reform, with this poll not among their top
five topics of discussion (Project for Excellence in Journalism, 2009).
!
For the purposes of this study, it is important to consider not just how different
types of media outlets covered Colbert SuperPAC, but how much Colbert SuperPAC
was covered. If the above authors are correct about the value of agenda-setting, more
coverage could have made campaign finance issues more urgent in the minds of
readers; less coverage, meanwhile, might have meant those issues would take on less
urgency.
!
While Colbert and Stewart have shown they have the power to persuade, others
in the media landscape have that same power - not only to set the agenda but also to
influence, perhaps subtly, how the public will think about an issue. There have already
been cases where Colbert and Stewart have influenced the agenda, and it is certainly
arguable that Colbert SuperPAC is one such instance where an issue - campaign
finance reform - was framed in a unique way and earned a good deal more media
coverage than it might have otherwise. That being said, others in the media have the
power to shape the agenda and frame stories as well. That is where this capstone
comes in.
25
!
The research question for this capstone is:
"
RQ: Did different types of media outlets - the mainstream media, liberal blogs, and
conservative blogs - differ at all in their coverage of Colbert SuperPAC? If so, how?
!
METHODS
"
For this capstone, I elected to pursue a more qualitative textual analysis over a
quantitative content analysis. While a textual analysis requires a smaller sample size
than a content analysis and cannot be said to be totally representative of how the media
covered Colbert SuperPAC, it does allow for a more in-depth discussion of the articles
and can still be useful in determining similarities or differences between mainstream
sources and more opinionated blogs.
"
Three newspapers were selected to represent the mainstream media
perspective, each with a specific reason in mind: The New York Times, described by
Encyclopedia Britannica as the United Statesʼ paper of record; The Washington Post,
for its geographic proximity to political agencies and bodies; and The Los Angeles
Times, for its geographic proximity to the entertainment industry. Overall, 30 articles
were used from those three papers: Eight from The Washington Post, 12 from The New
York Times, and 10 from The Los Angeles Times.
!
A list of liberal and conservative blogs was compiled using Technoratiʼs Top 100
Blogs list, as well as personal experience. For purposes of balance, six blogs were
chosen from both ends of the political spectrum. The blogs (and number of results
gathered from each) were:
26
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
LIBERAL (33)!
!
ThinkProgress (3)! !
Daily Kos (2)!!
!
Mother Jones (5)! !
Raw Story (8)!
!
Mediaite (13)!!
!
Crooks and Liars (2)!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
CONSERVATIVE (16)
Town Hall (4)
Hot Air (3)
Michelle Malkin (1)
Daily Caller (6)
Human Events (1)
The Blaze (4)
!
In addition, the conservative blogs Red State and The Foundry yielded no
suitable results and were excluded. A third, NewsBusters, failed to load during the
original search. It now appears to be operating fine, but in the interest of balance, it has
been omitted from this research.
!
The articles had to meet multiple criteria. For one, articles had to feature the
SuperPAC as a main focus of discussion. It did not have to be the sole topic of
discussion, but articles with less than three paragraphs of discussion of the SuperPAC
were omitted. Articles about Colbertʼs mock-run for President, for example, were
considered if they also discussed Colbertʼs handover of control of the SuperPAC to Jon
Stewart or otherwise linked it to his satirical efforts. (An exception would be made for
articles shorter than three paragraphs where the SuperPAC was the sole topic of
discussion. That was used once, for a January 15, 2012 article from ThinkProgress
which was a paragraph long and included a video of Colbert being interviewed by ABCʼs
George Stephanopoulos about campaign finance issues.)
!
In addition, only articles written during the “life” of the SuperPAC were considered
in the textual analysis. For these purposes, the “life” of the SuperPAC refers to the time
period from its initial formation as “ColbertPAC” on the March 10, 2011 edition of The
27
Colbert Report, to the announcement that the remaining SuperPAC funds would be
donated to charity, made on the December 13, 2012 edition.
!
To find articles from each source, specific search terms were used. The most
common search term was simply “Colbert.” In instances where too many articles were
found - more of a problem with the mainstream papers than blogs - additional terms
were added, so the final search term might have been “Colbert Super PAC.”
!
For the purposes of keeping the sample size manageable, I set an upper limit of
30 articles per media type - that is, a maximum of 30 articles would be included from
mainstream sources, another 30 from liberal blogs, and 30 more from conservative
blogs. In cases where more articles than that were found, as with the liberal blogs
above, articles were randomly selected for dismissal. Three articles, one each from
ThinkProgress, Raw Story and Mediaite, were found during the research phase of this
capstone, but ultimately not included in the study to conform with that limit. Those
articles, along with all of the articles that were examined, are included in the appendix
for reference purposes.
!
Each article was examined individually, with a focus on how the Colbert
SuperPAC was framed. This included analysis of specific keywords that might indicate
how the author viewed the SuperPAC, as well as the overall tone of the article. The
notes taken for each article indicated whether it could be considered positive or
negative - and if appropriate, whether it was clear or potentially ambiguous what
position was being taken - or did not take a stance on the SuperPAC.
!
In addition, broader trends among the different types of media, as well as specific
media outlets, were considered. For example, did certain media outlets within each
28
type cover the SuperPAC more or less often, and was their coverage markedly different
from each other? At what times did coverage spike among the different types, and were
there any points where coverage was highest among any or all of those types?
RESULTS
Section I: The Mainstream Media
!
Two events earned coverage from all three papers. The first was when the
Federal Election Commission (FEC), the government regulator overseeing campaign
finance law at the federal level, granted Colbertʼs request to form a SuperPAC; the
second was Colbertʼs faux-run for President in South Carolina. Both The New York
Times (Corasaniti, November 13, 2012) and The Washington Post (Sullivan, November
13, 2012) covered the shutdown of the SuperPAC, with the Post also noting that Colbert
donated the nearly $800,000 in remaining funds to multiple charities, including two
groups dedicated to campaign finance reform (Sullivan, December 14, 2012).
!
Most of the articles seemed to come from blogs hosted on the papersʼ websites,
such as The Fix on the Postʼs website, The Caucus on the New York Timesʼ, or
Showtracker on the Los Angeles Timesʼ. While some blog articles do get published in
the papersʼ hard copies, they are more heavily concentrated online.
Concerns About Colbert and the Federal Election Commission
29
!
The only time the coverage of Colbert SuperPAC was at all negative was when
Colbert visited the FEC seeking a waiver for his SuperPAC. As the Los Angeles Times
put it, Colbert wanted to know if the SuperPAC could “produce and air election
advertisements, with the assistance of resources provided by Viacom -- the parent
company of Comedy Central, which airs "The Colbert Report" -- without disclosing the
extent of Viacomʼs assistance” (June 30, 2011).
!
As all three papers reported, some campaign finance advocates grew concerned
that Colbertʼs actions might set a larger precedent. The New York Times noted that
advocates “grew concerned that the F.E.C. might set a precedent that would give major
television networks the ability to use their programs to raise money for political purposes
without having to disclose the sources of the cash” (June 30, 2011); The Washington
Post quoted Lisa Gilbert of Public Citizen, an advocacy group, who worried about “farreaching consequences” as a possible result (July 1, 2011). A Los Angeles Times
article written just before the decision was handed down noted that other television
commentators, like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, also had PACs and could have
benefitted from a ruling. The authors there also predicted a 3-3 tie among the FEC
commissioners on Colbertʼs request (June 30, 2011), which would have left the issue
officially unresolved.
!
In the end, the commissioners voted, 5-1, to give Colbert a narrow exemption to
the rules, meaning that Colbert could use his program to raise money for the SuperPAC
but that the decision would not create a binding precedent; any other television
personalities who wanted to use their shows to raise money would have to file their own
requests with the FEC, which might or might not be granted. The day after the ruling,
30
The Los Angeles Times quoted UC Irvine law professor Richard Hasen explaining why
the FEC did not deadlock, as some observers expected: "Part of the reason they didn't
deadlock here is that they knew they were going to get so much more attention than
they ever get” (July 1, 2011).
!
While the authors of these articles appeared not to take any personal positions
on the issue, they did spend a decent amount of time discussing the risks of a broader
decision by the FEC, raising the concern that what seemed to be an innocent attempt at
parody could have severe and significant real-world consequences.
The Op-Ed Pages: No Cheerleading Section
!
One of the few articles about Colbert SuperPAC written by an opinion columnist
took a hard tack as well, but in an opposite direction. The Washington Postʼs Dana
Milbank, writing about Colbertʼs visit to the FEC on June 30, 2011, seemed to feel the
comedian was not going quite far enough in his critique:
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Colbert set out to prove how flimsy campaign finance limits have become since the
Supreme Courtʼs Citizens United ruling, and the SuperPAC he created is !egregious
enough, allowing contributions of any size. But what he proposes to do isnʼt nearly as
abusive as whatʼs already going on. While Colbertʼs PAC has to release the names of
people who give him more than $200, the campaign finance vehicles preferred by Karl
Rove allow individuals to give millions of dollars to elect candidates without the donorsʼ
names becoming public.
!
While Milbank did not specifically criticize Colbertʼs efforts, and indeed seemed to
agree that the system needed reform, his article could hardly be considered a ringing
31
endorsement. (One of the “vehicles” Milbank was referring to, the 501(c)(4)
organization, would be a later target of Colbertʼs satire.)
!
The Postʼs Colbert I. King, meanwhile, was fairly positive about Colbert
SuperPAC, writing, “I get the part about parodying the craziness of campaign finance
and the farce that raising and spending oodles of money has made of our politics.” King
was, however, strongly critical of his fake run for President: “But disgust with the
corrosive effects of super PAC money and coolness toward the likes of Mitt Romney,
Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are no excuse for trying to disrupt the
presidential election system, as it appears Colbert has tried to do” (January 20, 2012).
!
Perhaps the only other article which expressed any kind of concern came from
The New York Timesʼ David Carr, who generally seemed to approve of Colbertʼs efforts,
but expressed a hope it would lead to more than cheap laughs: “Maybe the whole
system has become such a joke that only jokes will serve as a corrective. But if Mr.
Colbert succeeds only in drawing out more humor, then the whole idea is a failure. [...] it
would be a shame if this is only fun and games.” Interestingly, Carr closed with a quote
from an unnamed Colbert Report staffer, who explained, “Not even the actual news
reporters want to cover campaign finance,” despite Carr protesting earlier that “earnest
news organizations like the one I work for set out to do serious work that pulls back the
blankets on how money warps and distorts the political process” (August 22, 2011).
Overall Positive Reaction to Colbert SuperPAC
32
!
Apart from those articles, however, no other pieces appeared to express even a
slightly negative view of Colbert SuperPAC. It also should be noted that the articles
which did quote concerned campaign finance advocates also included other viewpoints
on the SuperPAC, instead of only focusing on it as a potential threat to existing
campaign finance restrictions. Had they focused more exclusively on the worried
advocates, that would have significantly altered the overall tone of the articles. Instead,
they appeared to hold to the expectation that journalists present both sides of a story
(Society of Professional Journalists, n. d.).
!
While many of the articles examined here avoided taking an explicit position on
the SuperPAC, something which was not unexpected because of that expectation, this
was not always the case. All three papers would publish articles featuring a positive
take on the SuperPAC, in some cases arguing that the SuperPAC was fulfilling a
valuable educational purpose. Melanie Mason of The Los Angeles Times called The
Colbert Report “a modern day Schoolhouse Rock” which was “bringing the absurdity of
campaign finance regulations to its rightful place - late night comedy” (April 15, 2011).
The New York Timesʼ Brian Stelter noted the SuperPACsʼ “educational and perhaps
energizing effect among some members of his young audience” (January 12, 2012).
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, writing for the “Guest Voices” blog, a faith-based blog
hosted by The Washington Post, lauded Colbert SuperPAC as an effort “to help voters
become aware of how Super PACs function to manipulate voting” (January 17, 2012).
!
Many times, the authors themselves seemed to be enjoying the joke. In many
cases, the authors used Colbertʼs jokes in their own writing. For example, when Colbert
shut down his SuperPAC, falsely complaining that his life was in danger from angry
33
donors, The New York Timesʼ Nick Corasaniti wrote that Colbert attempted “to fob the
blame on Jon Stewart” before stabbing “advisor and chief strategist” Ham Rove - a
canned ham with glasses, parodying Republican strategist Karl Rove - to death
(November 13, 2012). The Los Angeles Timesʼ Meredith Blake, discussing the
handover of the SuperPAC from Colbert to Stewart, wrote, “Stewart figured that the
transfer of power ʻfor something as critical to our democracy as a super PACʼ would
require a tremendous amount of paperwork but, on the contrary, all it required was a
two-page document signed by both Colbert and Stewart” (January 13, 2012). In the
latter case especially, it seemed the author was commending the pairʼs message as well
as their humor, though Corasanitiʼs article also mentioned Colbertʼs goal “to raise
awareness of loose campaign finance laws” (November 13, 2012).
!
The New York Timesʼ James C. McKinley, Jr., quoted a statement from Colbert to
Variety Magazine discussing his first ad, backing “Rick Parry”: “I called dibs on Rick
Parry a long time ago. I recognized that heʼs got the tough talk, the cowboy boots and
the history-of-shooting-coyotes-during-morning-jogs that our country needs” (August 11,
2011). Printed without a response from the Perry camp, it is not too much of a stretch to
say that the author is supporting Colbertʼs farcical message about Perry.
!
In at least one case, a writer noted that the media were helping to keep the story
going; Jason Zinoman of The New York Times, who praised Colbert for providing “a
study in the absurdity of laws governing campaign spending,” also recognized that
“writing this column shows how Iʼve become part of his joke, which is expanding into the
media landscape the way the Blob attacked a small town” (January 13, 2012). Just as
Day (2013) noted that the SuperPAC offered the media an opportunity to talk about a
34
subject they ordinarily might not - and as the aforementioned Colbert staffer claimed,
journalists often did not talk about campaign finance issues - the media gave Colbert
what he was looking for, which was more attention.
Embedded Video Clips
!
And they definitely did give him that: The vast majority of the articles examined
here included a quote or quotes from Colbert, many of those taken from an episode of
The Colbert Report; ten of the articles, or just over a third of those studied, had
embedded video clips from either The Colbert Report or The Daily Show which related
to the SuperPAC. As noted before, LaMarre (2013) found that watching Colbert talk
about the SuperPAC on his show seemed to make people more supportive of campaign
finance reform than those who learned about it elsewhere; embedding clips directly into
news articles may well have had the same effect.
Section II: Liberal blogs
Colbertʼs Trip To The FEC, And Its “Serious Ramifications”
!
As with the mainstream media coverage, liberal blogs were most negative in their
coverage when Colbert sought a waiver from the FEC. Liberal blogs began covering
that event much earlier on; both Mediaite and ThinkProgress posted articles on May 13,
2011 about his trip to the FEC that day. Mediaite featured a list of tweets from Colbertʼs
35
Twitter account encouraging people to join him at the FEC; ThinkProgress actually
included video of Colbert emerging from the building after meeting with the commission.
Mediaiteʼs Jon Bershad predicted a decent turnout, writing, “itʼs not like Colbert is
inexperienced when it comes to getting people to go to the nationʼs capital,” probably a
reference to Colbert and Stewartʼs “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear.”
ThinkProgressʼ Alyssa Rosenberg, meanwhile, essentially responded to the gathering
with a shrug: “It was fine, but going on the presidentʼs house and affirming before the
nation that heʼs a mockery is a stronger comedic speaking of truth to power than asking
people to show up and give you money,” the former presumably a reference to Colbertʼs
speech at the 2006 White House Correspondentsʼ Dinner.
!
Liberal blogs writing about Colbertʼs visit to the FEC noted the same concerns
alluded to in the mainstream mediaʼs articles, specifically the worry from campaign
finance activists that the FECʼs decision would allow any on-air personality to use their
shows as a fundraising vehicle for their PACs without requiring disclosure from their
networks. Daily Kosʼ “Adam B,” while noting that “it's difficult to think of a reason why
this request won't be granted under current campaign finance law,” was worried that
News Corporation, parent company of Fox News Channel, would use the exemption, “at
which point this may stop seeming so funny,” though he did not express the same
concern for Daily Kosʼ parent corporation taking advantage (May 17, 2011). Mediaiteʼs
Frances Martel, meanwhile, worried that the decision “may have some serious
ramifications for how politics is done from here on out” (June 30, 2011).
!
In a piece written after the FEC approved Colbert SuperPAC, Mediaiteʼs Josh
Feldman devoted several paragraphs to the concerns of those advocates “worried that
36
Colbertʼs stunt could backfire” (June 30, 2011), though that article did not explain that
Colbert had actually received a narrow exemption which would not apply to other
television hosts. Mother Jonesʼ Andy Kroll noted campaign finance advocatesʼ relief at
that: “The decision was lauded by reformers increasingly piqued by the FEC's actions.
[...] in the eyes of reformers, the FEC's narrow decision was the right one” (June 30,
2011).
Broad Support For Colbert SuperPAC, Opposition To Citizens United
!
Otherwise, only one other article expressed a negative view of Colbertʼs satirical
efforts, and that article focused more on Colbertʼs mock run for President in South
Carolina, including a SuperPAC ad which identified Colbert as former Republican
candidate Herman Cain. Daily Kos user “annetteboardman” complained that Colbert
was “screwing up a ballot” through his efforts and that “it still seems really tasteless to
me,” even as she wrote that “advertising the misspelling of a name, or attacking a
candidate seems fair” (January 17, 2012), both of which Colbert had done in previous
SuperPAC ads, indicating that she was more appreciative of Colbert SuperPACʼs satire
- echoing concerns, mentioned earlier, by The Washington Postʼs Colbert King.
!
That point of view was evidence of an interesting disconnect: Why would it be
alright for Colbert to potentially complicate the Ames Straw Poll but not an actual
primary? Perhaps the authors felt that Ames, a nonbinding poll, was that much less
crucial to the democratic process. Whatever the case, those authors seemed to support
37
Colbert SuperPAC and its efforts to potentially gum up the works at Ames, but
expressed concern when those efforts might have affected an actual primary election.
!
Another article featured a criticism of Colbert from NBCʼs White House
Correspondent, Chuck Todd, who lamented that Colbert was “making a mockery of the
system” and speculated that he might have been trying to “marginalize the Republican
Party.” In that case, Crooks and Liars blogger Nicole Belle forcefully defended Colbert,
arguing that “[w]hat Colbert is doing is far more edifying and far more informative than
any interview Chuck Todd has offered” and dismissing Todd as a “concern
troll” (January 20, 2012). That article did link to a video of Toddʼs comments at a
Winthrop University panel the day before.
!
The rest of the reaction was far more positive. Mother Jonesʼ Andy Kroll called
Colbert SuperPAC one of “2012ʼs Least-Horrible SuperPACs,” the others being Credo
SuperPAC and Friends of Democracy, two liberal SuperPACs which spent money in
support of Democratic candidates (November 30, 2012). Colbert SuperPACʼs first ad,
which asked Iowa voters to select “Rick Parry” - a deliberate misspelling of the name of
Texas Governor Rick Perry, who would enter the race for the Republican presidential
nomination - at the Ames Straw Poll, was praised as “a delightfully comedic twist” by
Mediaiteʼs Colby Hall (August 10, 2011) and a “hilarious [parody] of the typical preelection spot” by Kroll (August 11, 2011).
!
More broadly, ThinkProgressʼ Alyssa Rosenberg praised Colbertʼs tactics:
“Colbert...intervenes in ways that can be uncomfortably aggressive, and that are starting
to force the system to step in and shut him down as they did when he tried to buy the
38
naming rights to the South Carolina Republican primary. Iʼm interested in that kind of
pranksterism” (January 5, 2012).
!
It was fairly obvious from reading the blogs that their writers did not hold a
positive view of campaign finance regulations. The Raw Storyʼs David Ferguson
decried the “silliness of the Supreme Courtʼs Citizens United ruling” (January 13, 2012),
while Crooks and Liarsʼ Tina Dupuy praised Colbert SuperPAC as an attempt to
“illuminate a very dark and confusing byproduct of the Citizens United decision” (August
18, 2011).
!
Some specific events in the life of the SuperPAC spurred more criticisms of
Citizens United. In September 2011, Colbert formed a 501(c)(4) organization, which
can run some political advertisements, but unlike a SuperPAC, does not have to
disclose its donors. As Colbert said on the September 29, 2011 episode of The Colbert
Report, “Clearly, these (c)(4)s have created an unprecedented, unaccountable,
untraceable cash tsunami that will infect every corner of the next election. And I feel like
an idiot for not having one.”
!
Colbert then invited his personal lawyer, Trevor Potter, on the show to help him
set up a 501(c)(4) and explain how it could pose problems for anyone looking to trace
political spending:
!
COLBERT: Can I take this (c)(4) money and then donate it to my SuperPAC?
!
POTTER: You can.
!
COLBERT: But wait. SuperPACs are transparent.
!
POTTER: Right, and-
!
COLBERT: And the (c)(4) is secret.
39
!
POTTER: Mm-hmm.
!
!
COLBERT: So I can take secret donations of my (c)(4) and give it to my supposedly
transparent SuperPAC?
!
POTTER: And itʼll say “given by your (c)(4).”
!
COLBERT: What is the difference between that and money laundering?
!
POTTER: Itʼs hard to say.
!
Writing about that exchange, The Raw Storyʼs David Edwards began his story
this way: “Comedy Centralʼs Stephen Colbert created his own shell corporation
Thursday to demonstrate how Karl Rove launders money to his American Crossroads
SuperPAC” (September 30, 2011). That was a fairly damning statement to make,
especially considering the action was technically legal while money laundering is not.
!
Meanwhile, when Colbert showed how it was possible to turn a regular political
action committee into a SuperPAC with the addition of a one-page cover letter,
Mediaiteʼs Colby Hall wrote, “Rarely has the preposterous nature of campaign finance
reform been so clearly illustrated” (April 15, 2011). Given those examples of a clear
bias against the Citizens United decision and recent changes to campaign finance law,
the generally positive response from these blogs may not be too surprising.
Hyping The SuperPAC
!
In some cases, the articles discussed other positive developments surrounding
the SuperPAC, not just what the SuperPAC itself was doing. The Raw Story wrote
about Colbert receiving his second Peabody Award, this one due to his SuperPAC satire
40
(April 4, 2012), something Mother Jones also noted in a December 17, 2012 piece.
Mediaite cited one article which found that Colbert SuperPAC had raised more money
than the SuperPAC supporting Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (April 26,
2012), as well as one about college students taking Colbertʼs advice and forming their
own SuperPACs, writing that the existence of SuperPACs had “spawned a new
generation of political satirists armed with merely existent bank accounts and Open
Secrets pages” (May 21, 2012).
Embedded Video Clips
!
Of the 30 articles studied, 18 of them - 60% of the articles - had embedded clips
from The Colbert Report or The Daily Show, or of SuperPAC advertisements, allowing
readers multiple opportunities to hear about what the SuperPAC was doing directly from
Colbert or Stewart. In this case, however, LaMarreʼs (2013) theory might have been
less relevant, since these blogs generally framed the issue in a favorable light towards
Colbert. Since the articles were generally complimentary of the SuperPAC, adding clips
might not have been necessary to sway the audienceʼs perception of what Colbert was
doing. It is possible they still had a positive effect on issue knowledge, though more
research would have to address that.
Section III: Conservative blogs
Agenda-Setting At Work? Fewer Articles Written By Conservative Blogs
41
!
As previously noted, I was only able to find 16 suitable articles from the six
conservative blogs considered for this capstone. (Originally, my search of the Daily
Caller yielded six results, which would have increased the total to 17. However, a
February 23, 2012 piece was omitted since it did not fit my criteria for consideration.)
Archive searches of two blogs - conservative commentator Michelle Malkinʼs blog, and
the blog Human Events - yielded a single article from each. Two others - Red State and
The Foundry, the latter run by the conservative Heritage Foundation - yielded no articles
relating to the SuperPAC at all.
!
This is a telling result in itself, since it appears to validate the notion that media
outlets with a potential bias may want to set a different agenda. While liberal blogs
seemed much more willing to discuss Colbertʼs satirization of the campaign finance
system, their conservative counterparts were less so. Whether this is because the
Citizens United decision, and SuperPACs in general, are viewed particularly negatively
by even most Republicans (Newsmax.com, 2012) is unclear, but it is possible that these
blogs may have been less interested in defending SuperPACs because of their general
lack of popularity.
!
Interestingly, the conservative blogs seemed to spend more time talking about
Colbertʼs 2010 testimony before Congress on the treatment of migrant workers, almost
all of which was done in character. The conservative blogs which reported on that often
mentioned congressional embarrassment at Colbertʼs testimony, with Malkin calling it a
“stunt” and referring to Colbert as a “clown” with no expertise on the issue (Malkin,
42
2010), despite his one day of work on a farm, as chronicled on the September 23, 2010
episode of The Colbert Report.
Mixed Reaction On First Colbert SuperPAC Ad
!
As far as Colbert SuperPAC was concerned, a few events earned a little more
scrutiny from the conservative blogs. Colbertʼs testimony before the FEC was the
subject of a pair of articles, as was his campaign event with former presidential
candidate Herman Cain, and the SuperPACʼs announcement that it had raised a million
dollars. The only event which was written about more was the SuperPACʼs first ad,
supporting “Rick Parry” at the Ames Straw Poll, which earned three articles on the
selected blogs.
!
That ad in particular actually sparked a mixed reaction from the blogs that wrote
about it. While The Daily Callerʼs Jeff Winkler worried that the ad could create problems
for vote counters (August 13, 2011), Hot Airʼs Jazz Shaw noted that Colbert was raising
some “pertinent - if uncomfortable - questions,” even while questioning why his backers
were “supporting real activism and reform, rather than funding a traveling
sideshow” (August 11, 2011). A prior article from Winkler, which linked to the ad itself
via YouTube, talked about Colbertʼs “antics,” a word which could have a negative
connotation, but generally remained neutral on the adʼs content (August 10, 2011).
Generally Negative Coverage From Conservative Blogs
43
!
Otherwise, the coverage was more negative. The Blazeʼs Eddie Scarry derided
Colbertʼs plan to hold a faux-presidential election rally alongside Herman Cain as a
“stunt” and a “joke” (January 18, 2012), as did Hot Airʼs Tina Korbe, who added that
Cainʼs presence at the rally hammered home “the failure of his own campaign” (January
20, 2012). The general impression from that article seemed to be that the whole event
was a sad attempt at a joke.
!
Colbertʼs claim that the SuperPAC had raised over a million dollars, meanwhile,
was greeted with humor by The Daily Callerʼs Christopher Bedford, who quoted
Colbertʼs press release and FEC disclosure form at length, and reported that the
American people “can rest easy - by the time of the filing, the press release reported
that Colbert was once again in control of the PAC” after temporarily handing it over to
Jon Stewart (January 31, 2012). While Bedford did not appear to take a position on
whether the SuperPAC was a positive development or not, he did seem to be enjoying
the joke.
!
The Blazeʼs Christopher Santarelli was less positive, calling Colbertʼs presence in
the Republican primary “laughable (yet somewhat alarming),” and linking to another
Blaze article from January 21st, which also talked about NBCʼs Chuck Todd blasting
Colbert for “making a mockery of the system” (January 31, 2012).
!
Colbertʼs trip to the FEC also drew some negative attention. On June 30, 2011,
The Blaze ran an Associated Press story (which they claimed joint credit for) mostly
focusing on Colbertʼs testimony before the commission, but also touched on his
previous appearance before Congress, which the article said “quickly turned into a
circus when Colbert explained the term ʻcorn packer.ʼ” (In the video of his testimony,
44
which was embedded in the article, he claimed it was “a derogatory term for a gay
Iowan.”) The article also linked to a Fox News report discussing the monetary cost of
Colbertʼs testimony. It was unclear which parts of the article could be attributed to the
Associated Press and which came from The Blazeʼs staff.
!
The Daily Caller stayed more on-topic with its article, also released on June 30,
but did quote one self-identified Republican outside the FEC building as saying, “I feel
like Stephen Colbert is the voice of our generation and we need someone who will
accept large amounts of money to make a difference in this country.” As the article
notes, that man appeared to be very serious, indicating that he may have truly believed
Colbert was defending SuperPACs and the Citizens United decision. If he was, that
would be similar to what LaMarre, Landreville and Beam (2009) found in their
experiment, where conservatives seemed to believe Colbert actually was attacking
liberalism instead of parodying conservative pundits.
Did Colbert Prove Citizens United Was The Right Decision?
!
The response from conservative blogs was perhaps most negative following a
May 19, 2011 Wall Street Journal op-ed from Steve Simpson and Paul Sherman, two
attorneys at the Institute for Justice, which took part in the SpeechNow.org v. FEC case
that led to the creation of SuperPACs. The pair found it somewhat ironic that Colbert
was having so much trouble setting up his SuperPAC because of legal issues with
Comedy Centralʼs parent company, Viacom:
45
!
!
!
!
!
"Why does it get so complicated to do this? I mean, this is page after page of
legalese," Mr. Colbert lamented. "All I'm trying to do is affect the 2012 election. It's not
like I'm trying to install iTunes." Well, that's pretty much what the nonprofit group
Citizens United said to the Supreme Court in the case that Mr. Colbert is trying so hard
to lampoon.
!
Both Michelle Malkin and Hot Airʼs Ed Morrissey pounced on the article, with
Malkin claiming the op-ed showed “how liberal comedian Stephen Colbertʼs campaign
finance gag blew up in his face” (May 19, 2011). Morrissey added that, after trying to
“skewer” the Citizens United decision, Colbert “ended up getting a lesson in its
necessity” (May 19, 2011). A third article, from Townhallʼs Guy Benson, quoted the oped at length, with Benson opining that Colbert was not “nearly as bemused by his
decidedly unfunny recent run-in with federal election laws” as he was by a Newt
Gingrich campaign press release parodied on an episode of The Colbert Report (May
20, 2011). Meanwhile, the liberal blogs surveyed appeared not to have even mentioned
the op-ed.
!
While Colbert would eventually get a narrow exemption allowing him to promote
the SuperPAC on his show, and his satirical campaign would continue for about a year
and a half, the response from these blogs was essentially to say that the Supreme
Court got the Citizens United decision correct.
!
Perhaps the fiercest criticism of all came two days before that, when John
Hayward of Human Events used some sarcasm of his own to attack Colbertʼs efforts in
a May 17 article:
!
!
!
!
!
Colbert is right on target with his satire. Free speech is such a headache when
everyone gets to participate! Especially evil corporations, which spend huge
amounts of money to manipulate politics for their own interests… in sharp
contrast to noble left-wing organizations, which spend huge amounts of money to
manipulate politics for the good of all mankind. 46
!
The message here was essentially the same as the pair of articles noted above;
essentially, the authors argued that the Supreme Courtʼs decision in Citizens United
was correct. However, Hayward added a claim of hypocrisy, arguing that it was unfair
for liberals to criticize the decision when groups on the left take this kind of action
already.
Differences In Coverage Among Conservative Blogs
!
Unlike the liberal blogs studied, which were almost universally positive in their
reaction to Colbert SuperPAC, the conservative blogsʼ reactions to Colbert SuperPAC
varied somewhat. By and large, The Daily Caller seemed to treat Colbert the best
compared to the other conservative blogs. While its coverage was certainly not totally
positive, and some articles seemed to discuss the SuperPAC as some kind of joke
rather than a useful educational tool, their articles tended to lack some of the more
polemical writing seen in some of the above articles.
!
The strongest attacks on Colbert SuperPAC came from blogs which wrote about
him the least. The above articles from Hayward and Malkin, for example, were the only
articles relating to Colbert SuperPAC on their respective blogs; Morrisseyʼs article,
meanwhile, was one of only three posted on Hot Air, the smallest number on any other
conservative blog studied here. Conversely, The Daily Caller covered Colbert
SuperPAC the most and, again, was somewhat more measured in its writing than the
other blogs.
47
Embedded Video Clips
!
Somewhat surprisingly, seven of the 16 articles studied included an embedded
clip, either a segment from The Colbert Report or an ad from Colbert SuperPAC. (Hot
Airʼs August 11 story on Colbertʼs first advertisement linked to the ad but did not embed
it in the article, claiming that they had not been able to find a site which would let them
do so.) Countering LaMarreʼs (2013) theory, however, some of the clips were posted on
articles that were fairly negative towards Colbert. For example, the May 20, 2011 article
on Townhall featured a clip of actor John Lithgow lampooning a press release from the
Newt Gingrich campaign, but linked to and quoted the Wall Street Journal op-ed
mentioned earlier; The Blazeʼs June 30, 2011 article, also mentioned earlier, contained
two clips from The Colbert Report as well as a YouTube clip of his earlier congressional
testimony, but also seemed to criticize that appearance as “a circus” and noted the
potential cost of his prior testimony before Congress. Any benefits which Colbert might
have gained from having those clips available could have been countered by the
negative tone of the articles.
DISCUSSION
!
The purpose of this capstone was to compare the response of mainstream
newspapers, liberal blogs, and conservative blogs to Stephen Colbertʼs SuperPAC by
observing selected articles from different media outlets in each category.
48
!
Based on the articles surveyed, there were clear differences in how Colbert
SuperPAC was received by different types of media outlets, not simply in the tone of
their coverage but also, in the case of conservative blogs, the frequency.
!
By and large, the mainstream media and liberal blogs took a more positive
stance on Colbert SuperPAC, with the most positive sentiment coming from liberal blogs
which were also more likely to express a negative opinion of the Citizens United
decision Colbert was satirizing. While this was not always the case, and some articles
from liberal blogs were more neutral, many more clearly applauded his efforts.
Conservative blogs often took a more negative stance, sometimes expressly offering
support for the Citizens United decision as they did so. As with liberal blogs, the
response was not universally critical, but the articles were more likely to attack Colbert
SuperPAC than to support it.
!
Many of the mainstream articles studied did not feature an explicit argument in
favor of, or in opposition to, the SuperPAC. That was not totally unexpected, since
journalists are generally expected to report both sides of a story and remain impartial
(Society of Professional Journalists, n. d.). Many articles, however, quoted humorous
transcripts from The Colbert Report or other SuperPAC-related activities, indicating that
the authors were enjoying the joke, and perhaps that they were using quotes as a
means to spread Colbertʼs message to more people. In one case, an author noted that
the media was becoming part of Colbertʼs joke by talking about it so much (Zinoman,
January 13, 2012).
!
The two featured articles from opinion columnists, both for The Washington Post,
were, if not entirely positive towards the SuperPAC, certainly not negative. Both Dana
49
Milbank and Colbert I. King expressed concern about other related issues in their
articles but appeared supportive of, or at least sympathetic to, Colbert SuperPAC.
!
In the one case where an article from a liberal blog became really negative,
meanwhile - that being “annetteboardman”ʼs piece for Daily Kos - the criticisms
centered on Colbertʼs fake run for President, even as the author appeared to praise
what Colbert was doing with the SuperPAC.
!
The conservative blogs, meanwhile, were by no means universally critical of the
SuperPAC. A few articles actually sounded a fairly humorous tone towards the
SuperPAC, indicating that the authors were at least enjoying the joke, while one author
actually agreed that Colbert was raising some “pertinent - if uncomfortable questions” (Shaw, August 11, 2011). It was obvious, however, that many of the authors
held a very negative view of the SuperPAC; they appeared to regard the Citizens United
decision as a welcome development for the campaign finance arena and Colbertʼs
criticism as unfair. In some cases, their criticism extended to Colbertʼs prior efforts to
insert himself into national politics, such as testifying before Congress; some of the
blogs which did not write about the SuperPAC, like the Heritage Foundationʼs Foundry
blog, did write articles about that testimony.
!
In addition to the generally negative tone of the articles, the conservative blogs
wrote about Colbert SuperPAC the least. As noted before, two blogs initially consulted
for this study had written no articles relating to the SuperPAC; another two wrote only a
single article each, which were arguably the most negative articles of all. This would
seem to conform to the theory of agenda-setting, and the idea that if an opinionated
50
blog is seeking to present a specific worldview or argument, it would be more likely to
exclude competing arguments against that viewpoint.
!
Mainstream papers and liberal blogs both focused on one concern surrounding
Colbertʼs trip to the FEC, specifically that the commissioners might have decided to
make a much broader ruling than they eventually did. That was the only point where
the general tone of their coverage could really be considered at all negative, although
there were some individual articles at other points that were less flattering. Meanwhile,
apart from The Blazeʼs June 30, 2011 article, much of which appears to have been
taken from an Associated Press piece, conservative blogs seem to have ignored those
concerns.
!
The mainstream media, as well as liberal and conservative blogs, all wrote
articles about Colbert SuperPACʼs first ad, asking Iowa voters to pick “Rick Parry” at the
Ames Straw Poll. Of the three papers studied, The Washington Post was the only one
that did not have an article about that ad included in the analysis, and a search of the
paperʼs archives using the term “Rick Parry” does not bring up any articles specifically
focusing on the ad, though Colbert I. King did allude to the ad in his January 20, 2012
op-ed.
!
In some cases, though, the blogs focused attention on events that fit dueling
narratives of Colbert SuperPAC, and ignored others that did not. Two liberal blog
articles mentioned Colbertʼs 2012 Peabody Award, which he earned in large part from
his work on Colbert SuperPAC (Dolan, April 4, 2012; Caldwell, December 17, 2012),
and one article focused on his decision to donate the remaining SuperPAC money to
charity (Caldwell, December 17, 2012), something The Washington Post also wrote
51
about (Sullivan, December 14, 2012). Meanwhile, three articles from conservative
blogs discussed a Wall Street Journal op-ed which was harshly critical of Colbertʼs
efforts (Malkin, May 19, 2011; Morrissey, May 19, 2011; Benson, May 20, 2011).
!
Articles from liberal blogs included more embedded clips from The Colbert
Report, or of ads from Colbert SuperPAC. Of the 30 articles studied from liberal blogs,
18 featured at least one embedded clip - 60% of the articles studied. Somewhat
surprisingly, conservative blogs had the next highest proportion of embedded clips, with
seven of the 16 articles studied - close to 44% - featuring at least one. (In another case,
the authors of an article were unable to embed a clip and linked to it instead.) This was
unexpected since LaMarreʼs (2013) research suggested that including clips from the
show may have been more likely to make viewers more appreciative of his efforts,
though in this case, many of the articles which included clips were clearly negative in
tone.
!
The three newspapers studied here embedded clips 10 times out of 30 selected
articles, or just over 33% of the time. To some extent, that latter discrepancy makes
sense, since some of the articles from those sources appear to have been written
specifically for print. While none of those figures should be considered generalizable
due to the qualitative nature of this study, it is still interesting to consider in light of
previous research which suggested that could have a positive impact on messaging.
!
A few broader points could be made based on these results. First of all, Colbertʼs
entry into the campaign finance world was at least successful in drawing attention to the
topic. As was noted earlier, some observers applauded Colbert for giving the media an
opportunity to discuss the dry, highly technical issue of campaign finance in a way that
52
would attract more readership; by using humor to explain changes in the system postCitizens United, Colbert turned what could have been a dull, uninteresting discussion
into one people might pay attention to. (Given that the SuperPAC took in $1 million in
contributions, it is safe to say that many people were paying attention.) Even the
conservative blogs, whose authors generally seemed to approve of the Citizens United
decision, were drawn into this discussion. Had Colbert SuperPAC not been so
successful at drawing media attention, it stands to reason those blogs could have
simply ignored it without consequence. The fact that they wrote about it, even if they
did so much less frequently than their liberal counterparts and more often in an attempt
to disparage it, indicates that Colbert was able to draw a lot of attention to the issue of
campaign finance law, for better or worse.
!
Similarly, this study offers more evidence on the power of political entertainment
to affect the national discourse. Would Americans have debated the value of Citizens
United and SuperPACs regardless of Colbertʼs actions? Certainly, some would have,
and maybe the 2012 election would have thrust that issue to prominence regardless.
But Colbert did offer other media outlets an opportunity to discuss it as well,
demonstrating again the power of entertainers like Colbert and Stewart to not only
entertain and inform, but also to help set the agenda for the news media.
!
That was not as much the case with conservative blogs, which generally avoided
discussion of Colbert SuperPAC. When they did, they sometimes focused on some of
the challenges or attacks on Colbert SuperPAC. On the other side of the spectrum,
liberal blogs reported on the positive responses to Colbert SuperPAC, such as Colbert
winning a Peabody Award for his efforts. Those opinionated sources had different
53
narratives and ideas they wanted to convey, and they sometimes reported on the events
that fit those ideas, ignoring or soft-pedaling the ones that did not. Even the
comparative lack of coverage by conservative blogs could be construed as pushing a
different narrative, namely that Colbert SuperPAC really was not that important - except
when, as some authors would claim, Colbert inadvertently made the case for Citizens
United (Malkin, May 19, 2011; Morrissey, May 19, 2011; Benson, May 20, 2011).
!
While this research cannot definitively explain how this coverage affected
audiences, it stands to reason that audiences reading the conservative blogs could
have viewed Colbert SuperPAC not only as an object of scorn, but also something that
was less worthy of their attention. Readers of these liberal blogs would have seen a
much different narrative at work, one that placed more of a focus on Colbertʼs efforts
and were far more complimentary of its attacks on Citizens Unitedʼs impact. That
assumes, of course, that these readers would only select sources they agreed with and
did not sample stories from both sides, which would mean they would have had to
decide which of the two narratives they agreed with rather than only seeing one.
LIMITATIONS
!
This capstone examined 76 articles from a total of 15 sources. It did not include
a random sample of all available articles from a large number of sources, and some
articles found during the search were excluded to conform to the pre-determined
sample size. Given the small sample size as well as the non-random method of
selection, these results cannot be said to represent the entire media response to
54
Colbert SuperPAC, nor were they intended to. As noted before, figures on how many
articles included embedded clips can likewise not be considered generalizable. Rather,
this capstone was meant to offer more in-depth research on the response from several
fairly high-profile outlets, and serve as some of the first research performed on Colbert
SuperPAC. The results discussed here are fascinating, but they can and should be
expanded upon in future research.
!
This research also did not seek to address the question of how or whether this
differing coverage actually influenced consumersʼ opinions about Colbert SuperPAC.
Whether this coverage actually changed minds, or altered perceptions about Colbert
SuperPAC, would be a question for another research project.
!
Conversely, there is the potential that the different outlets did not change any
minds because consumers self-selected the outlets that supported their views to begin
with. Again, these are questions that could be considered in later research.
!
As with all qualitative analyses, there is the potential for bias here, be it in the
selection of sources or in the examination of the articles. As much as possible, the
methodology of this research was designed to avoid that bias, or at least to account for
it. While many of the articles cited here offered a clear, unambiguous statement of
opinion, some were more measured and may be open to different interpretations. Every
article examined here, and the three articles that were excluded, are included in the
appendix at the end of this paper for others to peruse. Future research may examine
those articles again and offer more diverse perspectives on their responses.
!
Likewise, that research may focus on different outlets to compare the reactions
even further, perhaps using a quantitative analysis to determine if these reactions were
55
consistent among other media outlets. That kind of research would be a welcome
development.
CONCLUSION
!
Colbert SuperPAC was shut down shortly after the 2012 election, while the issue
of campaign finance reform will probably continue to be debated for the foreseeable
future. In terms of having a concrete effect on campaign finance law - leading to a
repeal of the Citizens United decision or stricter laws on the disclosure of donors, for
example - Colbert SuperPACʼs impact seems negligible. SuperPACs are still legal, the
2012 election cycle was the most expensive on record, and the Supreme Court has
shown no willingness to revisit Citizens United as of yet.
!
Yet in terms of its ultimate impact on the campaign finance arena, it could easily
be argued that Colbert SuperPAC served a valuable purpose by informing the public on
changes to the system post-Citizens United. Not only was Colbert successful in
distilling those changes to a more readily digestible format, he was also able to enlist
the support of some media outlets to amplify his satirical message.
!
While the mainstream sources studied here often did not take an explicit position
on Colbert SuperPAC, they offered him a prime platform to spread his message by
including quotes or embedded videos from The Colbert Report. In fact, it could be
argued that the relationship was a symbiotic one; Colbert got more attention, and the
media got an incentive to report on an issue they otherwise may not have, in a way that
would draw more attention from readers. The liberal blogs also helped Colbert get more
56
attention, even as they took a clearer stance supporting his efforts, often framing them
as a needed effort to explain the dangers of the Citizens United decision to the public.
!
Even those who disagreed with his efforts were forced to respond to them, even
if they were ultimately critical of the SuperPAC. In some cases, conservative blogs also
gave him a platform to speak - by embedding or linking to clips from The Colbert Report
- even as they lambasted his efforts. While that was probably less helpful to Colbertʼs
goal of criticizing campaign finance laws, it nonetheless speaks to his ability to inject
himself into the news-making process as well as the policy debate. The narratives may
have differed, but he got plenty of attention and made it easier for people to learn what
had changed in the campaign finance arena.
!
If Colbert SuperPAC really did make the public more aware of, and more hostile
to, recent changes to campaign finance law, is it possible that this heightened
awareness could lead to more support for policy action later on? Perhaps, though only
time - and further research - will tell. If that does happen, and public pressure on the
issue leads to action, Colbert should probably thank the media for helping him to amplify
his message. Except for conservative blogs which were framing Citizens United as a
welcome development, these outlets essentially served as a megaphone for his satire.
Colbertʼs persona could rightly argue that the power of his audience - he would term
them “Colbert Nation” - was out in full force to back the SuperPAC with contributions
and other support, but ignoring the mediaʼs role in spreading the word would be a fine
example of “truthiness” indeed.
57
REFERENCES
2012 Election Spending Will Reach $6 Billion, Center for Responsive Politics Predicts (2012,
!
October 31). OpenSecrets.org. Retrieved December 4, 2012, from
!
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/2012-election-spending-will-reach-6.html
Ansolabehere, S., Snowberg, E. C., & Snyder Jr., J. M. (2005). Unrepresentative Information.
!
Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(2), 213-231.
Barnes, M. D., Hanson, C. L., Novilla, L. B., Meacham, A. T., McIntyre, E., & Erickson, B. C.
!
(2008). Analysis of Media Agenda Setting During and After Hurricane Katrina:
!
Implications for Emergency Preparedness, Disaster Response, and Disaster Policy.
!
American Journal Of Public Health, 98(4), 604-610.
Bennett, W. L. (2007). Relief in Hard Times: A Defense of Jon Stewartʼs Comedy In An Age Of
!
Cynicism. Critical Studies in Media Communication 24(3), 278-283.
Bloggers Seize on Obamaʼs Slipping Poll Numbers - July 20-24, 2009. (n.d.). Project for
"
Excellence in Journalism (PEJ). Retrieved March 13, 2013, from http://
!
www.journalism.org/index_report/bloggers_seize_obama
!
%E2%80%99s_slipping_poll_numbers.
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.
Chuck Todd Rips Stephen Colbert's Presidential Run (VIDEO) (2012, January 20). The
"
Huffington Post. Retrieved October 26, 2012, from
!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/20/chuck-todd-stephen-colbert!
president_n_1218614.html.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
Colbert Super PAC - Not Coordinating with Stephen Colbert. (2012, January 17). The Daily
"
Show with Jon Stewart. Retrieved April 2, 2013, from http://
!
www.thedailyshow.com/!
watch/tue-january-17-2012/colbert-super-pac---not!
coordinating-with-stephen-colbert.
Colbert Super PAC - Trevor Potter & Stephen's Shell Corporation. (2011, September 29). The
"
Colbert Report. Retrieved April 2, 2013, from http://www.colbertnation.com/the!
colbert-report-videos/398531/september-29-2011/colbert-super-pac---trevor!
potter---stephen-s-shell-corporation.
Dadlez, E. M. (2011). Truly Funny: Humor, Irony, and Satire as Moral Criticism. The
"
Journal of Aesthetic Education 45(1), 1-17.
Day, A. (2013). Shifting the Conversation: Colbertʼs Super PAC and the Measurement of
!
Satirical Efficacy. International Journal of Communication, 7, 414-429.
58
Entman, R. M. (1991). Framing U.S. Coverage of International News: Contrasts in
!
Narratives of the KAL and Iran Air Incidents. Journal of Communication, 41(4), 6-27.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of
"
Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
Fahmy, S., & Johnson, T. (2007). Mediating the Anthrax Attacks: Media Accuracy and
!
Agenda Setting During a Time of Moral Panic. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 15(1),
!
19-40.
Feldman, L., & Young, D. (2008). Late-Night Comedy as a Gateway to Traditional News: !An
!
Analysis of Time Trends in News Attention Among Late-Night Comedy Viewers During
!
the 2004 Presidential Primaries. Political Communication, 25(4), 401-422.
Fowler, J. H. (2008). The Colbert Bump in Campaign Donations: More Truthful than Truthy. PS:
"
Political Science and Politics, 41(3), 533-539.
Gilpatrick, B. (2011). Removing Corporate Campaign Finance Restrictions In Citizens United
!
v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. CT. 876 (2010). Harvard Journal of Law and
"
Public Policy, 34(1), 405-420.
Golan, G. J., Kiousis, S. K., & McDaniel, M. L. (2007). Second-Level Agenda Setting and
!
Political Advertising. Journalism Studies, 8(3), 432-443.
Hallahan, K. (1999). Seven Models of Framing: Implications for Public Relations. !Journal of
"
Public Relations Research, 11(3), 205-242.
Hart, R. P.; & Hartelius, E.J. (2007). The Political Sins of Jon Stewart. Critical Studies in "Media
"
Communication, 24(3), 263-272.
Hester, J., & Gibson, R. (2007). The Agenda-Setting Function of National Versus Local Media:
!
A Time-Series Analysis for the Issue of Same-Sex Marriage. Mass Communication and
"
Society, 10(3), 299-317.
Jeffrey, P. J., Baym, G., & Day, A. (2012). Mr. Stewart and Mr. Colbert go to Washington:
!
Television satirists outside the box. Social Research, 79(1), 33-60, 271.
Jon Stewart Crossfire Transcript. (n.d.) About.com. Retrieved December 3, 2012, from
!
http://! politicalhumor.about.com/library/bljonstewartcrossfire.htm.
LaMarre, H., Landreville, K., & Beam, M. (2009). The Irony of Satire: Political Ideology and the
!
Motivation to See What You Want to See In The Colbert Report. International Journal of
"
Press/Politics 14(2), 212-231.
LaMarre, H. (2013). When Parody and Reality Collide: Examining the Effects of Colbertʼs Super
!
PAC Satire on Issue Knowledge and Policy Engagement across Media Formats.
!
International Journal of Communication, 7, 394-413.
59
Liptak, A. (2010, January 21). Supreme Court Blocks Ban on Corporate Political Spending. The
"
New York Times. Retrieved March 21, 2013, from http://www.nytimes.com/
!
2010/01/22/! us/politics/22scotus.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
Malkin, M. (2010, September 24). Clown Colbertʼs Democrat enablers make mockery of
!
immigration policy; Rep. Steve King brings reality to hijacked hearing; Update: FIASCO!
!
Dems fight over Colbert. Michelle Malkin. Retrieved March 12, 2013, from http://
!
michellemalkin.com/2010/09/24/clown-colberts-democrat-enablers-make!
mockery-!
of-immigration-policy/.
Mancini, P. (2013). Media Fragmentation, Party System, and Democracy. The International
"
Journal of Press/Politics, 18(1), 43-60.
McCombs, M., & Reynolds, A. (2009). How the News Shape Our Civic Agenda. In J. Bryant &
!
M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media Effects Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 1-16). New
!
York: Routledge.
McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. Public
"
Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176-187.
McKain, A. (2005). Not Necessarily Not The News: Gatekeeping, Remediation, and The Daily
!
Show. The Journal of American Culture, 28(4), 415-430.
Morris, J. (2009). The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Audience Attitude Change During the
!
2004 Party Conventions. Political Behavior, 31(1), 79-102.
Munger, M. C. (2008). Blogging and Political Information: Truth or Truthiness? Public Choice,
"
134(1), 125-138.
Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public
!
Engagement. Environment, 51(2), 12-23.
Peake, J. S., & Eshbaugh-Soha, M. (2008). The Agenda-Setting Impact of Major Presidential
!
TV Addresses. Political Communication, 25(2), 113-137.
Peyser, M. (2006, February 13). Stephen Colbert: America's 'Truthiness' Teller. ! Newsweek
!
(via Wayback Machine Archive). Retrieved December 1, 2012, from http://
!
web.archive.org/web/20060425101629/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11182033/
!
site/! newsweek/.
Placone, R. A., & Tumolo, M. (2011). Interrupting the Machine: Cynic Comedy in the "Rally for
!
Sanity and/or Fear". Journal Of Contemporary Rhetoric, 1(1), 10-21.
Price, V., Nir, L., & Cappella, J. N. (2005). Framing Public Discussion of Gay Civil Unions. Public
"
Opinion Quarterly, 69(2), 179-212.
Reuters Poll: Most Americans Think Too Much Money in Politics. (2012, May 24).
!
Newsmax.com. Retrieved December 8, 2012, from
60
!
!
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/americans-money-politics-elections/
2012/05/24/! id/440238.
Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., & Carpentier, F. D. (2009). Media
!
Priming: An Updated Synthesis. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media Effects
"
Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 74-93). New York: Routledge.
Scheufele, D., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The
!
Evolution of Three Media Effects Models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9-20.
Simpson, S., & Sherman, P. (2011, May 19). Stephen Colbert's Free Speech Problem. The Wall
"
Street Journal. Retrieved March 12, 2013, from http://online.wsj.com/article/
!
SB10001424052748703421204576329642637361406.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h.
SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, 599 F. 3d 686 (DC Cir. 2010).
SPJ Code of Ethics. (n.d.). Society of Professional Journalists. Retrieved December 9, 2012,
!
from http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp.
Springs, J.A. (2011). Next Time, Try Looking It Up In Your Gut: Tolerance, Civility, and
!
Healthy Conflict in a Tea Party Era. Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, "
"
94(3), 325-358.
Staci, L. B. (2011). Getting Political Science In On The Joke: Using The Daily Show and Other
!
Comedy to Teach Politics. PS, Political Science & Politics, 44(2), 415-419.
Tewksbury, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). News Framing Theory and Research. In J. Bryant &
!
M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media Effects Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 17-33). New
!
York: Routledge.
The New York Times (2013). Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://
!
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/412546/The-New-York-Times.
The Word - Let Freedom Ka-Ching. (2009, September 15). The Colbert Report. Retrieved April
!
2, 2013, from http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/249055/
!
september-15-2009/the-word---let-freedom-ka-ching.
Waisanen, D. J. (2009). A Citizen's Guides to Democracy Inaction: Jon Stewart and
!
Stephen Colbert's Comic Rhetorical Criticism. Southern Communication Journal, !74(2),
!
119-140.
Wallsten, K. (2007). Agenda Setting and the Blogosphere: An Analysis of the Relationship
!
between Mainstream Media and Political Blogs. Review of Policy Research, 24(6),
!
567-587.
Warner, B. R. (2010). Segmenting the Electorate: The Effects of Exposure to Political
!
Extremism Online. Communication Studies, 61(4), 430-444.
61
Word Of The Year 2006. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved December 2, 2012, from
!
http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm.
Young, D. (2008). The Privileged Role of the Late-Night Joke: Exploring Humor's Role in
!
Disrupting Argument Scrutiny. Media Psychology, 11(1), 119-142.
62
APPENDIX
Articles - Textual Analysis
Washington Post
Eggen, D. (2011, June 30). FEC allows Stephen Colbert to form "super PAC" for 2012
!
elections. The Washington Post. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://
!
articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-06-30/politics/35233944_1_colbert-super!
pac-! funny-request-fec-decision
Eggen, D. (2011, July 1). Stephen Colbertʼs Super PAC is approved by FEC, but what will he
!
do with it? The Washington Post. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://
!
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/stephen-colberts-super-pac-is-approved-by!
fec-! but-! what-will-he-do-with-it/2011/07/01/AG5YG5tH_story.html
King, C. I. (2012, January 20). Stephen Colbert's unfunny run for president. The Washington
"
Post. Retrieved March 23, 2013, from http://articles.washingtonpost.com/
!
2012-01-20/! opinions/35441631_1_herman-cain-presidential-race-republican!
candidates
Milbank, D. (2011, June 30). Stephen Colbert, Karl Rove and the mockery of campaign
!
finance. The Washington Post. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://
!
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/stephen-colbert-cant-compete-with-karl!
rove/! 2011/06/30/AGnrkksH_story.html
Sonmez, F. (2012, January 13). Stephen Colbert hands super PAC to Jon Stewart, will run for
!
president... of South Carolina. The Washington Post. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from
!
http://! www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/post/stephen-colbert-hands!
super-!pac-to-jon-stewart-will-run-for-president-of-south-carolina/2012/01/13/
!
gIQAWXK5vP_blog.html
Sullivan, S. (2012, November 13). Stephen Colbert shuts down super PAC. The Washington
"
Post. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the!
fix/!
wp/2012/11/13/stephen-colbert-shuts-down-super-pac-2/
Sullivan, S. (2012, December 14). Stephen Colbert donates super PAC money to charity
!
(VIDEO). The Washington Post. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://
!
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/14/stephen-colbert-donates!
super-!pac-money-to-charity-video/
Thistlethwaite, S. B. (2012, January 17). Colbert and the Super PACs: The men who stare at
!
votes. The Washington Post. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://
!
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/colbert-and-the-super-!pacs!
the-! men-who-stare-at-votes/2012/01/17/gIQAoEpx5P_blog.html
63
New York Times
Carr, D. (2011, August 21). Stephen Colbert's PAC Is More Than a Gag. The New York Times.
!
Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/business/
!
media/!stephen-colberts-pac-is-more-than-a-gag.html?pagewanted=all
Corasaniti, N. (2012, November 13). Stephen Colbert Shuts Down 'Super PAC'. The New York
"
Times. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/
!
2012/11/13/stephen-colbert-shuts-down-super-pac/
McGrath, C. (2012, January 4). How Many Stephen Colberts Are There? The New York Times.
!
Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/magazine/
!
stephen-colbert.html?pagewanted=all
McKinley, Jr., J. C. (2011, August 11). Colbert Jumps Into Iowa Poll, Backing 'Rick Parry'. The
"
New York Times. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://
!
artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/! 2011/08/11/colbert-jumps-into-iowa-poll-backing-rick-parry/
Nir, S. M. (2012, January 31). Colbert's Super PAC Raises More Than $1 Million. The New York
"
Times. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/
!
2012/01/31/colberts-super-pac-raises-more-than-1-million-dollars/
Nolan, R. (2012, January 9). Behind the Cover Story: Charles McGrath on Stephen Colbert. The
"
New York Times Magazine. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://
!
6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/behind-the-cover-story-charles-mcgrath!
on-!
stephen-colbert/
Peters, J. W. (2012, January 13). Colbert to Advertise in South Carolina. The New York Times.
!
Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/
!
colbert-to-advertise-in-south-carolina/
Peters, J. W. (2012, January 15). Colbert's 'Super PAC' Runs Attack Ad. The New York Times.
!
Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/
!
colberts-super-pac-runs-attack-ad/
Rosenthal, A. (2012, January 13). Super PACs Explained! The New York Times. Retrieved
!
March 8, 2013, from http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/super-pacs!
explained/
Shear, M. D. (2011, June 30). Colbert Gets Permission to Form Super PAC. The New York
!
Times. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/
!
2011/06/30/colbert-gets-permission-to-form-super-pac/
Stelter, B. (2012, January 12). Stephen Colbert to Explore (or Pretend to) Run for President.
!
The New York Times. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://www.nytimes.com/
!
2012/01/13/us/politics/stephen-colbert-to-explore-or-pretend-to-run-for-president.html
64
Zinoman, J. (2012, January 13). Stephen Colbert Stirs Up Political Campaign and Media. The
"
New York Times. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://www.nytimes.com/
!
2012/01/14/! arts/stephen-colbert-stirs-up-political-campaign-and-media.html?_r=0
Los Angeles Times
Blake, M. (2011, July 1). About (Late) Last Night: Stephen Colbert launches Super Pac, starts
!
accepting donations [Video]. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from
!
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2011/07/about-late-last-night!
stephen-!
colbert-launches-super-pac-starts-accepting-donations-video.html
Blake, M. (2012, January 13). Late Night: Stephen Colbert drops 'super PAC' to run for
!
president. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://
!
latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2012/01/stephen-colbert-super-pac.html
Blake, M. (2012, January 18). Late Night: Stewart and Colbert push limits of 'not coordinating'.
!
The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://
!
latimesblogs.latimes.com/! showtracker/2012/01/late-night-stewart-and-colbert!
push-! limits-of-not-coordinating.html
Blake, M. (2012, February 3). Late Night: Colbert says super PACs are 'publicly buying
!
democracy'. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://
!
latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2012/02/stephen-colbert-says-super-pacs!
buying-democracy.html
Geiger, K., & Mason, M. (2011, June 30). Stephen Colbert makes case before FEC for 'Colbert
!
Super PAC'. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://
!
articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/30/news/la-pn-colbert-fec-20110630
Geiger, K., & Mason, M. (2011, July 1). Stephen Colbert appears before FEC, with some serious
!
business. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://
!
www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-colbert-fec-20110701,0,5605130.story
Gold, M., & Mason, M. (2012, January 18). 'Super PACs' dominate the political landscape. The
"
Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://www.latimes.com/news/
!
nationworld/nation/la-na-super-pacs-20120119,0,1538469.story
Horsey, D. (2012, January 21). Stephen Colbert shows Republicans how to draw a crowd. The
"
Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://www.latimes.com/news/
!
politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-stephen-colbert-20120121,0,235700.story
Mason, M. (2011, April 15). Stephen Colbert launches his Super PAC. The Los Angeles Times.
!
Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn!
stephen-colbert-pac-20110415,0,7563157.story
Zeitchik, S. (2011, August 11). With new ad, Stephen Colbert supports liberty, bad spelling. The
"
Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://
65
!
!
latimesblogs.latimes.com/!
pac-! ad-rick-perry.html
showtracker/2011/08/stephen-colbert-report-super-
Liberal blogs
Alvarez, A. (2012, November 13). Stephen Colbert Tries To Pin Massive Super PAC Spending
!
On Jon Stewart, A Ham. Mediaite. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://
!
www.mediaite.com/tv/stephen-colbert-tries-to-pin-massive-super-pac-spending!
on-!
jon-stewart-a-ham/
B, A. (2011, May 17). Colbert's trip to the FEC is not a joke. Daily Kos. Retrieved March 10,
!
2013, from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/17/976495/-Colbert-s-trip-to!
the-! FEC-! is-not-a-joke
Belle, N. (2012, January 20). Chuck Todd Is Concerned Stephen Colbert's PAC 'Makes a
!
Mockery of Our System'. Crooks and Liars. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from
!
http://! crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/chuck-todd-concerned-stephen-co
Bershad, J. (2011, May 13). Stephen Colbert Invites You To Join Him At FEC Offices Today!
!
Mediaite. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://www.mediaite.com/tv/stephen!
colbert-invites-you-to-join-him-at-fec-offices-today/
Bershad, J. (2012, April 26). Stephen Colbertʼs Super PAC Has Raised More Money Than Ron
!
Paulʼs Super PAC. Mediaite. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://
!
www.mediaite.com/! tv/stephen-colberts-super-pac-has-raised-more-money!
than-! ron-pauls-super-pac/
Boardman, A. (2012, January 17). Colbert's latest tactic makes me uncomfortable. Daily Kos.
!
Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://www.dailykos.com/story/
!
2012/01/18/1055845/-!Colbert-s-latest-tactic-makes-me-uncomfortable
Caldwell, M. (2012, December 17). Video: Colbert Super-PAC Donates Its Leftovers. Mother
"
Jones. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/
!
2012/12/!
stephen-colbert-superpac-funds-crp
Christopher, T. (2011, March 31). Stephen Colbert Enters Politics Officially Starts ʻColbert-PACʼ.
!
Mediaite. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://www.mediaite.com/tv/stephen!
colbert-enters-politics-officially-starts-colbert-pac/
Crugnale, J. (2012, January 17). Lawrence OʼDonnell: Stephen Colbert Highlights Whatʼs
!
Wrong With Mitt Romneyʼs SuperPACs. Mediaite. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from
!
http://! www.mediaite.com/tv/lawrence-odonnell-stephen-colbert-highlights!
whats-!wrong-!with-mitt-romneys-superpacs/
Dolan, E. W. (2012, April 4). Stephen Colbert wins another Peabody Award. Raw Story.
!
Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/04/stephen!
colbert-wins-another-peabody-award/
66
Dupuy, T. (2011, August 18). Colbert Satirizes 'Money as Speech' with a Word Cloud. Crooks
"
and Liars. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://crooksandliars.com/tina-dupuy/
!
colberts-satirizes-money-speech-word-cl
Edwards, D. (2011, September 30). Colbert explains Roveʼs ʻmoney launderingʼ scheme. Raw
"
Story. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/30/
!
colbert-explains-roves-money-laundering-scheme/
Edwards, D. (2011, October 7). Colbert: Raw Story ʻtwisted my words with misleading articlesʼ.
!
Raw Story. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://www.rawstory.com/rs/
!
2011/10/07/! colbert-raw-story-twisted-my-words-with-misleading-articles/
Feldman, J. (2011, June 30). FEC Approves ColbertPAC. Mediaite. Retrieved March 10, 2013,
!
from http://www.mediaite.com/tv/well-this-should-be-interesting-fec-approves!
colbert-superpac/
Ferguson, D. (2012, January 13). Colbert gives super PAC to Stewart, may seek presidency.
!
Raw Story. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://www.rawstory.com/rs/
!
2012/01/13/! colbert-turns-super-pac-over-to-stewart-may-seek-presidency/
Hall, C. (2011, April 15). Stephen Colbert Revives ColbertPAC With Cover Letter (Illustrating
!
Campaign Finance Folly). Mediaite. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://
!
www.mediaite.com/tv/stephen-colbert-revives-colbertpac-with-cover-letter!
illustrating-! campaign-finance-folly/
Hall, C. (2011, August 10). Colbert SuperPAC Campaign Ad Video | Rick Parry Write-In.
!
Mediaite. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://www.mediaite.com/online/
!
stephen-colberts-superpac-releases-its-first-campaign-video-episode-iv-a-new-hope/
Jones, A. (2012, January 31). Colbertʼs super PAC receives over $1 million in donations. Raw
"
Story. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/31/
!
colberts-super-pac-receives-over-1-million-in-donations/
Kane, M. (2011, April 15). Colbert invokes Citizens United to create a SuperPAC. Raw Story.
!
Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/15/20781/
Kroll, A. (2011, June 30). Stephen Colbert Wins PAC Approval—Without Destroying Political
!
Cash Laws. Mother Jones. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://
!
www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/colbert-pac-fec-viacom
Kroll, A. (2011, August 11). Stephen Colbert's Super PAC Ads Get "Cornographic". Mother
"
Jones. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/
!
2011/08/stephen-colberts-super-pac-ads-get-cornographic
Kroll, A. (2012, November 30). 2012's Least Horrible Super-PACs. Mother Jones. Retrieved
!
March 10, 2013, from http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/super-pac!
colbert-credo-soros
67
Martel, F. (2011, June 30). Lawrence OʼDonnell Examines ʻDisturbingʼ Precedent Set By
!
Colbertʼs Super PAC. Mediaite. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://
!
www.mediaite.com/! tv/lawrence-odonnell-examines-disturbing-precedent-set!
by-!
stephen-colberts-super-pac/
Martel, F. (2012, January 16). Jon Stewart Blows Colbert SuperPAC Money On Fancy Food By
!
Mario Batali. Mediaite. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://www.mediaite.com/
!
tv/!
jon-stewart-blows-stephen-colberts-superpac-money-on-fancy-food-by!
mario-!batali/
Martel, F. (2012, January 18). Samuel L. Jackson Narrates Scathing Colbert SuperPAC Attack
!
Ad Against Stephen Colbert. Mediaite. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://
!
www.mediaite.com/online/samuel-l-jackson-narrates-scathing-colbert-superpac!
attack-!ad-against-stephen-colbert/
Martel, F. (2012, May 21). Stephen Colbertʼs SuperPAC Stunt Inspires Wacky Array Of
!
Undergrad-Run Super PACs. Mediaite. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://
!
www.mediaite.com/online/stephen-colberts-superpac-stunt-inspires-wacky-array!
of-!
undergrad-run-super-pacs/
Rosenberg, A. (2012, January 5). The Delightful Disruptiveness of Stephen Colbert.
!
ThinkProgress. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/
!
2012/01/05/398122/the-delightful-disruptiveness-of-stephen-colbert/
Spross, J. (2012, January 15). Stephen Colbert: "Corporations are people". ThinkProgress.
!
Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://thinkprogress.org/politics/
!
2012/01/15/404666/! stephen-colbert-corporations-are-people/
Wyler, G. (2012, January 19). Colbert plans South Carolina rally with Herman Cain. Raw Story.
!
Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/19/colbert!
plans-! south-carolina-rally-with-herman-cain/
Liberal blog articles excluded from study
Dolan, E. W. (2011, August 10). Colbert Super PAC releases first ad: Vote ʻRick Parryʼ at Ames.
!
Raw Story. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/
!
2011/08/!
colbertsuperpac-releases-first-ad-vote-rick-parry-at-ames/
Martel, F. (2011, November 1). Stephen Colbert Tempts OWS Protesters Into Selling Out With
!
His SuperPAC Money. Mediaite. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://
!
www.mediaite.com/tv/stephen-colbert-tempts-ows-! protesters-into-selling-out!
with-! his-superpac-money/
Rosenberg, A. (2011, May 13). Overheard With Stephen Colbert at the FEC. ThinkProgress.
!
Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/
!
2011/05/13/184690/! overheard-with-stephen-colbert-at-the-fec/
68
Conservative blogs
Bedford, C. (2012, January 31). Stephen Colbertʼs super PAC raises over $1 million. The Daily
"
Caller. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/31/stephen!
colberts-super-pac-raises-over-1-million/
Benson, G. (2011, May 20). Hilarious: John Lithgow Performs Dramatic Reading of Gingrich
!
Campaign Press Release. Townhall. Retrieved March 8, 2013,
from http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2011/05/20/
hilarious_john_lithgow_performs_dramatic_reading_of_gingrich_campaign_press_releas
e
Hayward, J. (2011, May 17). The Colbert Super-PAC. Human Events. Retrieved March 8, 2013,
!
from http://www.humanevents.com/2011/05/17/the-colbert-superpac/
Korbe, T. (2012, January 20). Stephen Colbert, Herman Cain to host a campaign event in South
!
Carolina today. Hot Air. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://hotair.com/archives/
!
2012/01/20/stephen-colbert-herman-cain-to-host-a-campaign-event-in-south!
carolina-today/
Malkin, M. (2011, May 19). How to wipe the smirk off Stephen Colbertʼs face. Michelle Malkin.
!
Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://michellemalkin.com/2011/05/19/how-to!
wipe-! the-smirk-off-stephen-colberts-face/
Martosko, D. (2012, January 17). Colbert ad promises ʻmerciless ad torrentʼ to ʻdestroyʼ
!
Gingrich, Romney. The Daily Caller. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://
!
dailycaller.com/!
2012/01/17/colbert-ad-promises-merciless-ad-torrent-to!
destroy-gingrich-romney/
Morgenstern, M. (2012, January 21). NBCʼs Chuck Todd Rips Colbert: ʻMaking a Mockery of the
!
Systemʼ With ʻAnti-Republicanʼ Agenda. The Blaze. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from
!
http://! www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/01/21/nbcs-chuck-todd-rips-colbert!
making-a-mockery-of-the-system-with-anti-republican-agenda/
Morrissey, E. (2011, May 19). Colbert punks … self? HotAir. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from
!
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/19/colbert-punks-self/
Santarelli, C. (2012, January 31). Colbert SuperPAC donations reach $1 million. The Blaze.
!
Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/01/31/colbert!
superpac-donations-reach-1-million/
Scarry, E. (2012, January 18). Herman Cain joining in on Colbertʼs joke. The Blaze. Retrieved
!
March 8, 2013, from http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/01/18/herman-cain!
joining-!in-on-colberts-joke/
Seidl, J. M. (2011, June 30). No Joke: Stephen Colbert Testifying Before FEC To Defend His
!
ʻSuper PACʼ. The Blaze. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://www.theblaze.com/
69
!
!
stories/!2011/06/30/no-joke-stephen-colbert-testifying-before-congress-to-defendhis-! super-pac/
Shaw, J. (2011, August 11). Colbert Super Pac launches first Iowa ad. Hot Air. Retrieved March
!
8, 2013, from http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/11/colbert-super-pac-launches!
first-! iowa-ad/
Weinstein, J. (2012, January 15). New satirical ad in South Carolina suggests Mitt Romney may
!
be a ʻserial killerʼ. The Daily Caller. Retrieved March 17, 2013, from http://
!
dailycaller.com/2012/01/15/new-satirical-ad-in-south-carolina-suggests-mitt!
romney-may-be-a-serial-killer/
Winkler, J. (2011, June 30). FEC approves Colbertʼs super-PAC. The Daily Caller. Retrieved
!
March 8, 2013, from http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/30/fec-approves-colberts!
super-!pac/! 2/
Winkler, J. (2011, August 10). Colbertʼs Super PAC launches first TV ad supporting ʻRick Parryʼ.
!
The Daily Caller. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/10/
!
colberts-super-pac-launches-first-tv-ad-supporting-rick-parry/
Winkler, J. (2011, August 13). Colbertʼs ads advocate Rick ʻParryʼ write-in, create a straw-poll
!
mess. The Daily Caller. Retrieved March 8, 2013, from http://dailycaller.com/
!
2011/08/13/! colberts-ads-advocate-rick-parry-write-in-create-a-straw-poll-mess/
70