Agenda-Setting With Satire: TTIP's Saliency on Public, Media, & Political Agenda PDF

Agenda-Setting With Satire How Political Satire Increased TTIP’s Saliency on the Public, Media, and Political Agenda Mark Boukes University of Amsterdam Agenda-setting  Classic theory...

Agenda-Setting With Satire How Political Satire Increased TTIP’s Saliency on the Public, Media, and Political Agenda Mark Boukes University of Amsterdam Agenda-setting  Classic theory Bennett and Iyengar (2008, p. 709):  But still a lot to discover? “The agenda-setting paradigm reflects the capacity of ideas to motor on, unimpeded by inconvenient realities to the contrary.”  Hope to spark diversity:  Combining (1) public, (2) inter-media, and (3) political agenda-setting  Study on aggegrate as well as individual level  New concept: Satire 2 Political satire and agenda-setting Reality: Media reality: Political agenda Media agenda Public agenda 3 Setting the stage  The Netherlands  Show: Zondag met Lubach  Timing: 2015  Topic: TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) o Unfamiliar topic at that time 4 5 Agenda-setting  Individual-level media effect; cognitive process To know To understand To evaluate or act  Most existing studies 6 Step 1: To know  Previous research (e.g., Becker, 2013; Hardy et al., 2014; Young & Hoffmann, 2012)  Satire can contribute to knowledge of complicated topics  H1: Exposure to political satire about TTIP positively affects the knowledge of this topic. 7 Study 1: Panel survey – data collection  Conducted by I&O  3 Waves: 8 weeks gap W1: 6,386 respondents; from February 23, 2015 W2: 4,301 respondents (RR1 = 69.0%); from April 20 W3: 3,270 respondents (RR1 = 77.0%); from June 15 8 Panel survey – data collection  Wave 1: Demographics, media exposure, current affairs knowledge (a) investment fund for pensions,  Wave 2: (b) trade agreement between the EU and US (c) policy proposal for new tax regulations,  Knowledge of TTIP (d) new political party, (e) I don’t know. 59.99% = correct 9 10  30a. Wat is het TTIP? Freq. Percent een beleggingsfonds van pensioenbeheerd 45 1.06 een voorgesteld vrijhandelsverdrag tuss 2,558 59.99 een wetsvoorstel om het belastingstelse 40 0.94 een nieuw opgerichte politieke partij 2 0.05 ik weet het niet 1,619 37.97 Knowing TTIP Total 4,264 100.00  Regular viewers +31% more likely to know 11 Step 2: To understand  Satire often relatively substantive  Explains issues into detail:  with background information  long segments  Comprehend jokes = demands cognitive resources and central processing  H2: Exposure to political satire about TTIP positively affects the feeling of being informed about this topic. 12 Step 3: To find it important  Trustworthy sources may set the agenda (traditional news)  Political comedy = funny …. 13 Step 3: To find it important  Trustworthy sources may set the agenda (traditional news)  Political comedy = funny ….  Also: serious and “earnest” satire 14  H3: Exposure to political satire indirectly affects the public agenda via its positive effect on the feeling of being informed about this topic. 15 Study 2: Experiment  Weinman et al.’s (2013) construct “subjective information” (α =.86) MA Thesis: (1) felt informed by the video, Joy Schouten (2) thought they were able to place the information in a broader context, (3) understood the crucial facts of the video, (4) understood the complexity of the topic, (5) learned something, and (6) were able to explain facts of the video without too much difficulty. 16 Study 2: Experiment - Understanding TTIP 17 χ2 (51) = 63.90, p =.106; CFI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.05 (90% CI = [.00,.08]); SRMR =.06 18 Moving to the aggregate level  Public agenda-setting  Satire episodes on TTIP should have set the agenda  Online search query data reliable proxy (Maurer & Holbach, 2016; Scharkow & Vogelgesang, 2011)  H4: The number of TTIP search queries increased after the satire broadcast about this topic. 19 Intermedia agenda-setting  Satire – Journalism relationship is tense:  Satirists often criticize and parody the news media  Not sure if it is serious or entertainment  Competition: “unwelcome visitors” (Carlson & Peifer, 2013, p. 340)  H5: TTIP becomes more salient in the news media after the satire broadcast about this topic. 20 Political agenda-setting  Satirists often “speak truth to power” (Gray, Jones, & Thompson, 2009, p. 6)  Politicians perceive satire as influential o Visit these programs o Third-person effect  Clear political responsibility, unfamiliar topic, negative.  H6: TTIP is more frequently discussed in Parliament after the satire broadcast about this topic. 21 Study 3: Longitudinal analyses  ARIMA modelling  July 2013 (first negotations) – May 2016 (29 weeks after Episode 2) Public: Google Trends on “TTIP” Media: Newspaper + ANP articles about TTIP (LexisNexis) Political: Parliamentary questions about TTIP (officielebekendmakingen.nl) 22 100 Public agenda Media agenda 80 Political agenda 60 40 20 0 2013w40 2014w1 2014w13 2014w26 2014w40 2015w1 2015w13 2015w26 2015w40 2016w1 2016w14 Date (year, week) 23  Public agenda Public agenda Public agenda (decaying effect) (permanent effect) b (SE) p b (SE) p Intercept 0.00 (1.10).998 -1.54 (4.64).741  Decaying effect: Negotiations -0.44 (1.37).749 -0.73 (4.40).868 Public agenda 0.47 (0.07).000 0.40 (0.07).000 Weakens every week Media agenda 1.30 (0.04).000 1.26 (0.11).000 factor 3 Political agenda 0.39 (0.45).389 1.38 (1.34).301 ZML: decaying effect 58.20 (1.17).000 ZML: permanent effect 5.73 (3.41).093 Permanent influence Log-likelihood -404.92 -494.17 AIC 823.83 1002.34 n.s. BIC 844.52 1023.03 24  Media and political agenda Media agenda Media agenda Political agenda Political agenda (decaying effect) (permanent effect) (decaying effect) (permanent effect) b (SE) p b (SE) p b (SE) p b (SE) p Intercept 1.12 (0.83).176 0.61 (0.94).512 0.38 (0.14).005 0.27 (0.14).053 Negotiations -0.74 (1.29).566 -0.52 (1.25).676 -0.05 (0.23).832 0.00 (0.21).994 Public agenda 0.29 (0.01).000 0.28 (0.01).000 0.01 (0.01).282 0.01 (0.01).341 Media agenda 0.34 (0.09).000 0.23 (0.08).006 0.01 (0.02).488 0.00 (0.02).835 Political agenda -0.11 (0.43).800 -0.15 (0.42).725 0.07 (0.07).369 0.02 (0.08).841 ZML: decaying effect 5.48 (11.64).638 0.27 (0.97).780 ZML: permanent effect 1.58 (1.03).127 0.42 (0.15).006 Log-likelihood -390.92 -390.81 -159.32 -155.74 AIC 795.84 795.63 332.64 325.48 BIC 816.77 816.56 353.33 346.17 25 Discussion  All studies have their weaknesses, but together unique collective  Agenda-setting effects still as relevant as before (Pavitt, 2010).  Also the satire genre  Efffects go further than citizens:  News media (indirectly) and politicians (directly) also 26 Limitation  Is this a generalizable finding?  Combination of show and topic 27 Quote:  Lilianne Ploumen, former Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation (2012-2017): “I've been trying to attract attention for TTIP a long time. I wrote an opinion article, but no newspaper was interested in it. When Lubach paid attention, suddenly there was a debate, and questions were raised in Parliament.” (Van Loon, 2017, p. 3) 28 Agenda-Setting With Satire How Political Satire Increased TTIP’s Saliency on the Public, Media, and Political Agenda Mark Boukes University of Amsterdam