Carey 1
Brian Carey
PL SCI 427
18 Sept, 2013
The subject of week four is Political Socialization, and the article I chose to react to was
The Colbert Bump in Campaign Donations: More Truthful than Truthy written by James H.
Fowler in the Political Science and Politics journal. The article examines the relation between
appearing on The Colbert Report and the effect it has on campaign donation and dollars. While
the findings are very interesting the support is not strong enough to assume that The Colbert
Report is responsible. Higher and or more frequent donations are the result of factors associated
with, but not attributed; to appearing on Stephen Colbert’s show.
As a fan of Stephen Colbert, I was excited to read about the political impact his character
had. After the first read, Fowler had me convinced. His numbers he gathered seemed logical,
along with his graphs which supported the idea that democrats get a huge boost in donations and
republicans received a “pre-Colbert bump” before appearing on the show. (Fowler 2008) I had
trouble deciding why these numbers were so, and a second read lead to finding problems with
Fowler’s data and arguments.
After really studying Figure 1 and its supplemental data in Table 1 I began to see that the
“similar counterparts” were not as similar as one would hope. While party, incumbency status,
and donations were the same between counterparts, it is very hard to assume that the elections
themselves are similar. When looking at the states of the Colbert candidates and the states of the
counterparts, I saw some strange pairings- the very liberal California was paired with Georgia; in
another, California was paired with Nebraska. Another problem that was not considered is how
Carey 2
close elections or primaries are to the appearance on the show. There are different cycles of
campaigns, and it’s possible that some numbers are low or inflated because of how far along the
candidates are in their campaign.
There are a few problems that are not Fowler’s fault, and he alludes to a few of them.
There is a very small sample size, his model treats democrats and republicans the same, and there
is not enough election history to tell if candidates win elections. The bump means nothing if the
candidate does not win. Fowler’s model that created the graphs is also quite simple, using only a
few variables.
Further evaluation has been done with a larger sample size due to it being a more recent
study. S. Travis Gregory extended upon Fowler’s ideas, along with a more complex regression
model. Some of the variables Gregory included are: time until election, appearance date, second
appearances, Better Know a District vs. actual interviews, congress vs. senate vs. president, and
party and incumbency. Based on his models, candidates who do an interview with Colbert (vs.
Better Know a District) will receive a 90% increase in contributions over a 28 day period, and
congressman who appear on the Better Know a District segment actually receive a 7% decrease.
(Gregory 2011)
The regression model Gregory uses also has its drawbacks; some consistent with
Fowler’s model. The sample size is still relatively small, and even smaller is the sample of
candidates who do an actual interview. The model cannot include possible reasons for guests to
be picked for the show. Gregory raises a point that candidate’s fund raising has a snowball
effect, meaning that money raised is spent on raising more money. In other words, there is
momentum involved with campaign donations. (Gregory 2011) Both authors agree that the
candidates could be making the rounds to other TV shows and that could boost their numbers.
Carey 3
Another reason I find these numbers unconvincing, is because of the demographic of The
Colbert Report. The number of viewers that are between the ages of 18 and 29 is 43%. (Trends
in News Consumption: 1991-2012) The least politically active age group with the least amount
of income is most likely not responsible for a boost in contributions.
This article raises interesting ideas in terms of our broader subject of political
socialization. The media has an effect on how we view politics, and there is a trend in the recent
“News” media that has more commentating and less journalism or reporting. Stephen Colbert,
although satirical, is one of these commentators that essentially tells the listener what they would
like to hear. The shift to a more opinion centered news program is most likely in the pursuit of
ratings, but at the possible cost of having an uninformed electorate. This is not only
conservatives or only liberals who present biased news, both sides have their own personalities.
The problem with commentators is that opinion is often mistaken for fact when these shows are
viewed. Pew Research Center’s News Consumption report did a survey asking people where
they get there news from; a graph they had was particularly interesting because it involved a
political knowledge quiz, and the results were sorted by the participants’ primary sources of
news. Four questions were asked, and 29% of people who said Colbert was their primary source
of news got all four correct. The Colbert Report ranked 9th among a range of media outlets, while
only 14% of the general public answered all 4 questions correctly, and 17% of the general public
did not get any correct. (Trends in News Consumption: 1991-2012)
Ever heard of the saying, “Any publicity is good publicity”? This is the key variable in
the Colbert Bump. Just as some candidates may get boosts from going on The O’Reilly Factor or
Hardball, candidates may receive boosts from the Colbert Report. Due to trending towards
opinion based news, we seek out programs that are supporting our existing views, and they are
Carey 4
reinforced when candidates appear on shows in a positive or even a negative light. That
reinforcement is what I believe to be the reason for any sort of bump. The “bump” is not specific
to Colbert, but specific to popular commentary news programs.
Carey 5
Bibliography
Fowler, James H. 2008. "The Colbert Bump in Campaign Donations: More Thruthful than
Thruthy." PS Political Science and Politics 533-39.
Gregory, S. Travis. 2011. "Quantifying the Colbert Bump in Political Campaign." Haverford
College. Accessed September 16, 2013.
http://triceratops.brynmawr.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10066/7045/2011GregoryS_thes
is.pdf?sequence=2.
2012. "Trends in News Consumption: 1991-2012." Pew Research Center, Washington D.C.
September 27. Accessed September 16, 2013. http://www.people-press.org/files/legacypdf/2012%20News%20Consumption%20Report.pdf.