Politics has always played a role in late-night television talk shows, be it through political discussion (e.g., when HBO’s Last Week Tonight with John Oliver dedicated an entire episode to the proposed immigration policy of 2016 Presidential Candidate, Donald Trump), or through political guest appearances, such as John F. Kennedy’s 1960 appearance on NBC’s Tonight Starring Jack Paar.

While satirical late-night television can be compared to comedic variety shows such as Saturday Night Live, the distinguishing factor of late-night television talk shows is its delivery of factual news.

“It is the jobs of late-night television shows to consume the news of the day and spit it back out to the audience in a way that brings awareness to the issue as well as make fun of it in some capacity,” said Folake Ayiloge, a production intern for Comedy Central’s The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore.

There have been many studies and scholarly debates on the effect that late-night television may have on an individual’s political engagement, possibly due to its satirical delivery of hard political news.

“People in general respond better to things that are given to them in a more entertaining way than it is straight facts,” said Ayiloge, who has also interned for NBC News.

“People tune in to late-night not only to catch updates on the news, but also to see how they should feel about certain news,” said Ayiloge, adding, “when late-night hosts get to a high level of celebrity, like Jon Stewart, for instance, who realized how strong of an impact he had on the world around him, it can sometimes prove to be too much of a responsibility.”

Ayiloge is referring to the recent retirement of the late-night television host, Jon Stewart, who was at the helm of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, for sixteen years before retiring in 2015.

The day after Stewart announced his retirement, The New Yorker published an article titled, ‘Jon Stewart, We Need You In 2016.’

“It created a pleasure in politics itself, which is otherwise endangered in this country,” said The New Yorker, on the impact that The Daily Show had on politics.

“He is very good at making it clear when we are looking at Citizens United-funded performance art, and when what’s on stage is something, even something quite funny, approximating real politics,” said The New Yorker on the impact that Stewart himself had.

In an article published on The Guardian, titled, ‘Jon Stewart: Why I Quit The Daily Show,’ it was mentioned that Stewart’s energetic campaigning on behalf of the 9/11 first responders prompted the New York Times to compare him to Walter Cronkite and Edward R Murrow, the most revered newscasters in American history.

In the New York Times article, titled, ‘In Daily Show Role On 9/11 Bill, Echoes of Murrow,’ Robert J. Thompson, a professor of Television at Syracuse University, was quoted saying, “Comedy on television, more than journalism on television, may be the most effective outlet for stirring debate and effecting change in public policy.”

Hoon Lee, a post-doctoral research fellow at the Nam Center for Korean Studies at the University of Michigan, conducted a study that was published in the September 2012 issue of Mass Communication and Society. The study, ‘Communication Mediation Model of Late-Night Comedy: The Mediating Role of Structural Features of Interpersonal Talk Between Comedy Viewing and Political Participation,’ resulted in a conclusion that late-night television can be just as effective as regular political news in encouraging discussion among audience members.

Using the research firm, Qualtrics, Lee sent out a survey in which 768 adult panelists aged 18 and older were randomly assigned to one of three groups. One group watched a clip of NBC Nightly News, which served as hard news; another group watched a clip of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, which served as late-night television; and the third group watched a clip of Disney World, which served as the control group.

After watching the clip randomly assigned to them, the participants answered a questionnaire that was to determine their level of political engagement or intended engagement as a result of watching the clips.

The group exposed to late-night television reported a greater intent to engage in frequent discussion compared to the control group, but not compared to the hard news group. However, late-night scored significantly higher than both hard news and the control group in terms of online interaction.

Lee could not be reached for comment.

A similar Qualtrics survey taken by 33 people between May 6, 2016 and May 15, 2016 asked the question “Does politics in late-night television motivate you to be engaged in politics, or does it discourage you?”

12 of the 33 selected, “I feel motivated” whereas the remaining 21 selected, “I’m neither motivated nor discouraged by it.”  Nobody selected, “I feel discouraged.”

Following the question was an optional text box which encouraged participants to elaborate on their answer.

“Seeing someone else passionate, and with research, makes me feel more intelligent and motivated,” said one participant who had indicated motivation.

Another motivated participant said, “Late-night TV is refreshing because it calls politicians on their ‘B.S.’ Cable news is essentially propaganda for the two parties. I like that late-night TV offered a different perspective.”

One participant who indicated their indifference said, “Mostly when I watch late-night TV that had political commentary it mostly echoes what I’ve read from news organizations throughout the day.”

Another indifferent participant said, “Mostly it’s satirical so I take it with a grain of salt and usually laugh along with the late-night hosts.”

The survey also asked participants about their source(s) of political news.

While 15 of the 33 participants indicated that they get their political news from late-night television, only 6 consider it to be their main source of political news.

The most popular of political news sources was “Social Media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)” with 25 of the participants having indicated it as a source. 17 participants selected “Cable News,” 14 selected “Word of Mouth” and just 13 selected “Newspapers.”

The participants of the 2016 Qualtrics survey consisted of 20 females, 12 males and 1 participant who did not identify his/her gender.  There were 17 democrats, 8 independents, 4 republicans, 1 libertarian, 2 who did not identify their affiliation and 1 who did not affiliate with any party. The age range was between 18 and 58 years old. 23 participants were from New Jersey, 5 participants were from New York, 1 from Pennsylvania, 1 from Alabama, 1 from Arizona, 1 from Massachusetts, and 1 from California.

The 2016 study was not without flaws: there were only 33 participants, whereas the study conducted by Lee had 768. The survey consisted of questions which required its participants to think back to previous exposure to late-night television, whereas in the 2012 study, participants watched a clip just before taking their survey.

While it would be necessary to get a more diverse and expansive panel of participants in order to get a realistic picture of the effect late-night television has on political engagement, one thing that can be determined from the 2016 study is that late-night television does have an impact on political engagement, with that impact being a positive one.

For the complete results of the 2016 Qualtrics survey, check out the public Qualtrics report.

For further information on the subject, check out the following recommended articles and books:

• A History of Politicians on Late Night, Newsweek
• Late Night TV Is an Official Stop on the Campaign Trail, Vogue
• The 2016 Presidential Campaign – A News Event That’s Hard to Miss, Pew Research Center
• New Media and American Politics, by Richard Davis (P. 217-220, The Talk Show Campaign)