Menus Subscribe Search

Follow us


The Truthiness of The Colbert Report …

• April 20, 2009 • 4:51 PM

… Is in the eyes of the beholder, who, it turns out, sees what the beholder wants its eyes to see.

So … Stephen Colbert doesn’t really mean all those wacky liberal-bashing things he says, does he? Comedy Central’s The Colbert Report is obviously a parody of a wing-nut right-wing talk show. Right?

Or … is it? (Cut to devilishly quizzical chin-grabbing stare.)

He can’t be serious.

Or … can he sort of be? (Cut to screeching bald eagle.)

Well, apparently Colbert is just that good. His character is so pitch-perfectly ambiguous that, according to a new study, what it is you see in him is whatever it is you want to see in him. If you are liberal, he is a liberal, too. If you are a conservative, he is a conservative, just like you.

And if you are a bear, well, good luck.

Colbert is, it would appear, a fun-house mirror to the deepest recesses of your political soul.

In order to test this scientifically, Heather L. LaMarre, along with Kristen D. Landreville and Michael A. Beam (all communications doctoral students at The Ohio State University), subjected 322 participants with a mix of political ideologies to a three-minute 2006 video clip of Stephen Colbert discussing media coverage of the Iraq war with “super liberal lefty” radio host Amy Goodman.

Media, Politics, Stephen Colbert, Comedy

Researchers believe when someone looks at Stephen Colbert, they see their own views staring back at them, whether that makes Colbert a Bolivarian revolutionary or a truthiness-teller in the Archie Bunker mold. (Comedy Central)

They then asked participants to evaluate Colbert’s ideology and his attitude towards liberalism. What they found was that the more liberal participants reported their own ideology to be, the more liberal they thought Colbert was. And the more conservative they reported their own ideology to be, the more conservative they thought Colbert was. Both, however, found him equally funny. The results are published in the April edition of the International Journal of Press/Politics.

“Liberals will see him as an over-the-top satire of Bill O’Reilly-type pundit and think that he is making fun of a conservative pundit,” LaMarre explained. “But conservatives will say, yes, he is an over-the-top satire of Bill O’Reilly, but by being funny he gets to make really good points and make fun of liberals. So they think the joke is on liberals.”

How can this be? Are they really both watching the same Stephen Colbert? Actually, the reason is pretty simple. It is a phenomenon that has been familiar to social psychologists for a long time: confirmation bias. “When you look at social psychology and you see how people process information, people see what they want to see,” said study co-author Landreville. “They take whatever they want out of that message. So if I’m a liberal, I’ll have my liberal goggles on when I’m watching The Colbert Report and I’ll think he’s a liberal.”

Confirmation bias is likely to be especially pronounced in satire because one of the things about satire — especially the deadpan, bald-eagle satire of Colbert — is that it is chock-full of ambiguity and uncertainty. This leaves lots of opportunities for a viewer to fill in the blanks — a kind of choose-your-own-truthiness, if you will.

“The nature of satire, when you boil it down, is that messages are to varying degrees implied messages,” explained Lance Holbert, a professor of communications at The Ohio State University who studies the intersection of entertainment and politics. “It requires the audience to fill in the gap, to get the joke. And it requires a certain bit of knowledge to fill in the gap. … Certain types of humor are much more explicit. In satire the humor is very complex.”

LaMarre got interested in the question of how audiences interpret Colbert back in 2007, when she started puzzling over how several appearances by Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee had seemingly helped to jump-start Huckabee’s campaign from out of nowhere. Was it a joke? Or what?

“[Huckabee] would publicly thank Stephen Colbert,” she said. “So, from a research point of view, you can ask is this because there are a lot of conservatives who watch Colbert and are now suddenly interested in Mike Huckabee? Is it because they think Colbert is supporting Huckabee?”

One parallel study the authors note is a 1974 article on perceptions of the television show All in the Family. In the piece, professors Neil Vidmar and Milton Rokeach found that although the show’s creator, Norman Lear, had intended to use the Archie Bunker character as a gentle way to poke fun of and discredit racist attitudes, audience members who held racist attitudes never quite got the joke — instead they sympathized with Archie Bunker and may have even found his folksy prejudices to justify their own.

In general, communications researchers are now only beginning to explore the implications and impacts of the new and growing domain of late-night political comedy. Though political satire is nothing new, it was typically encapsulated in larger comedy programming, for example as a sketch on Saturday Night Live. But both The Colbert Report and The Daily Show are primarily about politics. And their widespread audiences — both average more than a million nightly viewers (mostly in the 18-to-49 demographic) — give them the potential to have an impact on American politics.

“Satirists provide a unique perspective to what’s going on with elite decision-makers,” said Holbert. “They’re holding them to the fire a bit. There are discussions to whether they can be too powerful, but those discussions have been around for a long time, and their influence ebbs and flows.”

Most studies have focused on the The Daily Show. One ongoing debate, for example, is between those who think that Jon Stewart promotes a level of cynicism that is ultimately harmful to democracy, and those who think that Stewart actually gets citizens engaged in politics and helps them to feel more politically efficacious.

But this Colbert study is the first to focus exclusively on The Colbert Report. So what, exactly, does it matter if people see in Colbert only what they want to see? One consequence LaMarre and colleagues discuss is that Colbert may actually be reinforcing existing prejudices and polarization. If his goal is to persuade, he is doing a poor job of it.

But, what is Colbert’s purpose, anyway? LaMarre said she’d love to interview him to find out what he’s up to. (Miller-McCune.com tried to talk to him but hasn’t had any luck so far.)

But then again, would Colbert ever give a straight answer? And if he did, wouldn’t that ruin the whole effect?  “I think what I enjoy most about Colbert is that he is true to this character,” said LaMarre. “I think he’s brilliant. He always leaves you wondering a bit how serious he is.”

Or … is he?

Sign up for our free e-newsletter.

Are you on Facebook? Become our fan.

Add our news to your site.

Lee Drutman
Lee Drutman, Ph.D., teaches at the University of California Washington D.C. Semester Program. He has worked as a staff writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Providence Journal. His work has also appeared in the Los Angeles Times, New York Newsday, Slate, Politico and the American Prospect.

More From Lee Drutman

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

December 18 • 4:00 PM

How I Navigated Life as a Newly Sober Mom

Saying “no” to my kids was harder than saying “no” to alcohol. But for their sake and mine, I had to learn to put myself first sometimes.


December 18 • 2:00 PM

Women in Apocalyptic Fiction Shaving Their Armpits

Because our interest in realism apparently only goes so far.


December 18 • 12:00 PM

The Paradox of Choice, 10 Years Later

Paul Hiebert talks to psychologist Barry Schwartz about how modern trends—social media, FOMO, customer review sites—fit in with arguments he made a decade ago in his highly influential book, The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less.


December 18 • 10:00 AM

What It’s Like to Spend a Few Hours in the Church of Scientology

Wrestling with thetans, attempting to unlock a memory bank, and a personality test seemingly aimed at people with depression. This is Scientology’s “dissemination drill” for potential new members.


December 18 • 8:00 AM

Gendering #BlackLivesMatter: A Feminist Perspective

Black men are stereotyped as violent, while black women are rendered invisible. Here’s why the gendering of black lives matters.


December 18 • 7:06 AM

Apparently You Can Bring Your Religion to Work

New research says offices that encourage talk of religion actually make for happier workplaces.


December 18 • 6:00 AM

The Very Weak and Complicated Links Between Mental Illness and Gun Violence

Vanderbilt University’s Jonathan Metzl and Kenneth MacLeish address our anxieties and correct our assumptions.


December 18 • 4:00 AM

Should Movies Be Rated RD for Reckless Driving?

A new study finds a link between watching films featuring reckless driving and engaging in similar behavior years later.


December 17 • 4:00 PM

How to Run a Drug Dealing Network in Prison

People tend not to hear about the prison drug dealing operations that succeed. Substance.com asks a veteran of the game to explain his system.


December 17 • 2:00 PM

Gender Segregation of Toys Is on the Rise

Charting the use of “toys for boys” and “toys for girls” in American English.


December 17 • 12:41 PM

Why the College Football Playoff Is Terrible But Better Than Before

The sample size is still embarrassingly small, but at least there’s less room for the availability cascade.


December 17 • 11:06 AM

Canadian Kids Have a Serious Smoking Problem

Bootleg cigarette sales could be leading Canadian teens to more serious drugs, a recent study finds.


December 17 • 10:37 AM

A Public Lynching in Sproul Plaza

When photographs of lynching victims showed up on a hallowed site of democracy in action, a provocation was issued—but to whom, by whom, and why?


December 17 • 8:00 AM

What Was the Job?

This was the year the job broke, the year we accepted a re-interpretation of its fundamental bargain and bought in to the push to get us to all work for ourselves rather than each other.


December 17 • 6:00 AM

White Kids Will Be Kids

Even the “good” kids—bound for college, upwardly mobile—sometimes break the law. The difference? They don’t have much to fear. A professor of race and social movements reflects on her teenage years and faces some uncomfortable realities.



December 16 • 4:00 PM

How Fear of Occupy Wall Street Undermined the Red Cross’ Sandy Relief Effort

Red Cross responders say there was a ban on working with the widely praised Occupy Sandy relief group because it was seen as politically unpalatable.


December 16 • 3:30 PM

Murder! Mayhem! And That’s Just the Cartoons!

New research suggests deaths are common features of animated features aimed at children.


December 16 • 1:43 PM

In Tragedy, Empathy Still Dependent on Proximity

In spite of an increasingly connected world, in the face of adversity, a personal touch is most effective.


December 16 • 12:00 PM

The ‘New York Times’ Is Hooked on Drug du Jour Journalism

For the paper of record, addiction is always about this drug or that drug rather than the real causes.


December 16 • 10:00 AM

What Is the Point of Academic Books?

Ultimately, they’re meant to disseminate knowledge. But their narrow appeal makes them expensive to produce and harder to sell.


December 16 • 8:00 AM

Unjust and Unwell: The Racial Issues That Could Be Affecting Your Health Care

Physicians and medical students have the same problems with implicit bias as the rest of us.


December 16 • 6:00 AM

If You Get Confused Just Listen to the Music Play

Healing the brain with the Grateful Dead.


December 16 • 4:00 AM

Another Casualty of the Great Recession: Trust

Research from Britain finds people who were laid off from their jobs expressed lower levels of generalized trust.


December 15 • 4:00 PM

When Charter Schools Are Non-Profit in Name Only

Some charters pass along nearly all their money to for-profit companies hired to manage the schools. It’s an arrangement that’s raising eyebrows.


Follow us


Apparently You Can Bring Your Religion to Work

New research says offices that encourage talk of religion actually make for happier workplaces.

Canadian Kids Have a Serious Smoking Problem

Bootleg cigarette sales could be leading Canadian teens to more serious drugs, a recent study finds.

The Hidden Psychology of the Home Ref

That old myth of home field bias isn’t a myth at all; it’s a statistical fact.

A Word of Caution to the Holiday Deal-Makers

Repeat customers—with higher return rates and real bargain-hunting prowess—can have negative effects on a company’s net earnings.

Crowdfunding Works for Science

Scientists just need to put forth some effort.

The Big One

One in two United States senators and two in five House members who left office between 1998 and 2004 became lobbyists. November/December 2014

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.