Final Paper_Megan Lax

A Million Ways to Die in the U.S.: The Portrayal of the 2014
Ebola Epidemic on The Colbert Report and The Daily Show
1
MEGAN LAX
Policy Journalism and Media Studies Capstone
Duke University
December 5, 2014

Abstract: This study investigates how The Colbert Report and The Daily Show portray the 2014
Ebola epidemic in their satirical news segments. Quantitative content analysis is used to examine
the explicit claims made regarding the severity and reality of the virus as a threat worldwide and
to the United States; the intended targets of the shows’ critiques about the Ebola crisis; and how
they frame the issue. Results show that a large majority of statements on both programs
explicitly affirmed the Ebola virus as an epidemic and the United States taking action to help
stop the spread, although the programs differed on their explicit statements about the severity of
the threat of the Ebola virus spreading to the United States; with the majority of Stewart’s
statements explicitly challenging the severity and Colbert’s explicitly affirming it. The most
frequent targets of Ebola humor were concern or panic about the spread of the virus, news media
coverage of Ebola, and the public. Although the programs were most likely to frame the Ebola
epidemic in substantive terms, a majority of coverage simultaneously framed the epidemic in a
dramatic frame, focusing on the conflict surrounding the virus.
2
Introduction
The 2014 Ebola epidemic has affected people all over the world, killing thousands of
people in Africa, capturing the attention of global leaders, humanitarians and doctors and putting
many Americans into high alert for fear of the virus spreading. Despite countless medical
professionals assuring the American public the disease is only contagious for those in close
contact with the bodily fluids of extremely ill individuals, panic spread throughout the nation.
Many attribute the source of this panic to the major news outlets covering the crisis (Boehlert
2014; Haglage 2014), which often emphasize the early, non-specific symptoms and display
images of people dying in the streets on the other side of the world. While some panic is
justified, as the disease is horrifying, and many argue more should be done to help those affected
by the sickness in West Africa (Kaplan 2014; McClam 2014), much of the information being
spread about the virus is misleading. Interesting questions were raised from the public’s response
to the outbreak, such as, what role does the media play in informing but also reassuring the
American people during a public health crisis, and how does the way they frame an epidemic
affect the nation’s response? Understanding how news media outlets are supposed to portray

3
public health epidemics, and have done so in the past, versus the way they are currently
portraying the Ebola outbreak is important to answer this question.
Furthermore, there are currently other forms of journalism to which many people turn to
for their news and information, such as satirical programs like The Daily Show and The Colbert
Report, and it is also important to understand how these outlets are informing their viewers about
the crisis. Because these outlets often comment on traditional news programs’ conflicting
statements, as well as use clips from traditional media broadcasts to frame their comedic
arguments (Baym 2009, 20), analyzing these satirical programs’ portrayal of the crisis tells a lot
about the ways traditional news is informing the public about the virus. Looking at the way
satirical news media outlets such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report describe and frame
the Ebola epidemic, this paper will outline how non-traditional news formats fulfill the
journalistic role of informing people during the current 2014 Ebola epidemic, and how they
subsequently call out traditional news media for failing to responsibly do so.
From briefly looking at how the traditional news media is framing the current epidemic
(by looking at the homepages of mainstream news outlets) it can be seen that the issue is being
framed in several different ways, not all of them informative. Media covered politicization of the
issue close to the midterm elections, with coverage of the ways both Republicans and Democrats
are placing blame on the other party for the spread of the disease or the inability to quell it
(Babington 2014; Nather 2014; Rogers 2014) as well as covering the present and future actions
being taken by U.S. administration and health authorities (Lee 2014; Mohney 2014; Carstensen
2014). However, there is also criticism evident in the media, and of the media, as to the extent of
the severity of the disease and possible unnecessary fear being instilled in the public, which is
causing many to panic (CBS News 2014; Christensen 2014; Walton 2014; Faust 2014). In fact,

many blame the irresponsible practices of traditional networks for causing hysteria and leaving
the public ill informed; citing such instances as CNN inviting a fiction writer who wrote an
Ebola thriller in the 1980s onto their show to speak about the disease, and Elizabeth Hasselbeck
of Fox News literally demanding the country be put on lockdown and ban all travel in and out of
it (Boehlert 2014). Actions such as these led satirical journalist, and one of the subjects of this
study, Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, to make statements like, “It’s almost like they’re [news
media] crossing their fingers for an outbreak.”1 Unfortunately, the media’s response to the
disease is not only causing panic but also failing to properly inform the public. A survey by
Harris Poll and HealthDay revealed the percentage of Americans who see the disease as a major
public health threat doubled in less than a month, to 27 percent, with three out of four polled
saying “they are concerned people carrying Ebola will infect others before showing symptoms
themselves”, which is a medical impossibility (Boehlert 2014; HealthDay 2014; Wolford 2014).
The contentious nature and subsequent panic regarding the spread of Ebola in the United States
is reflected in—and likely perpetuated by—news coverage of the issue and, in particular, how
the issue has been framed.
4
By analyzing the content of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report’s coverage of the
2014 Ebola epidemic, this research will attempt to understand how these programs frame the
virus compared to traditional news outlets, as well as why the targets of their humor matter with
regards to the public’s understanding of the virus and response to the outbreak. An overview of
what scholars have said about satirical journalism and its impact on the public as well as how the
traditional media has framed public health epidemics in the past will help establish the frames
the non-traditional formats are using in their segments as well as the credibility of these satirical
1 http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/zec15p/germs-of-engagement
2
Specifically,
a
value
of
“1”
was
assigned
for
“affirm”
when
a
statement
was
made
affirming
the

formats as a form of journalism which have an actual effect on public knowledge and opinion.
Content analysis of segments from the two programs will provide data to draw conclusions about
their portrayal of the 2014 Ebola epidemic.
Literature Review
5
Many studies have looked into the content of satirical news programs in a broad
journalistic sense, and others have analyzed the ways these shows portray particular issues such
as the environment or political campaigns (Feldman 2013; Gregory and Cichello 2011), but none
have looked at how they portray public health epidemics. It is important to understand media
framing of public health outbreaks (Shih, Wijaya and Brossard 2008; Laurie 2001), the ethical
obligations that come with covering such a crisis (Wilkins 2005) and how the media has covered
outbreaks in the past (Ringo 2005; Osterholdm 2005; Ricchiardi 2003), as well as how The Daily
Show and The Colbert Report function as forms of journalism (Fox, Koloen and Sahin 2007;
Baym 2009; Baym 2010; Gregory and Cichello 2011), their ability to be an alternative to
mainstream news sources (Pew Research Center 2008; Beavers 2011; Stewart 2007) and the
programs’ effects on public participation (Hoffman and Young 2011; Robinson 2014) before
understanding the impact their coverage of an Ebola outbreak has on the public.
Media Framing of Public Health Epidemics
Scholars suggest that public understanding of an issue depends on the issue’s framing in
the media (Entman 1993; Feldman 2013; Shih, Wijaya and Brossard 2008). Understanding how
the traditional news media frames public health epidemics is therefore critical before examining
how other programs parody, or whether or not they also use, those frames. The literature
suggests that when dealing with the outbreak of a virus, the media has to get important
information out to the public while also minimizing harm (Shih, Wijaya and Brossard 2008;

Garrett 2001) and must therefore also deal with the ethical implications of reporting on diseases
(Wilkins 2005). Wilkins argues that in a time of a public health crisis, a journalist’s role evolves
from simply reporting on coverage to the goal of saving lives (2005, 247), and they must
therefore not only provide information about the disease but also act as a “multidirectional
conduit for information between the public and those who have decision making authority” as
well as monitor how well societal institutions respond to particular events (248).
6
Shih, Wijaya and Brossard found that the media uses both dramatic and substantive
frames when covering public health epidemics (2008, 145), with the dramatic framework
encompassing conflict, uncertainty and reassurance frames (145) and the substantive framework
encompassing consequence, action and new evidence frames (146). The conflict frame focuses
on “differences in opinions as well as outright arguments/disagreements among news sources”,
the uncertainty frame is “characterized by uncertainties in any aspect(s) of the epidemics
including the cause, the cure, the possible spread, etc.” and the reassurance frame “expresses the
idea the public should not be worried about the effects of the disease” (149). Overall, these
frames don’t so much focus on the factual evidence of the disease and inform the public about
how to respond, but instead serve to outline the more dramatic aspects surrounding the crisis.
These frames were not found to be the dominant frames used by the media in the
researchers’ study of media coverage of the outbreaks of Mad-cow disease, West Nile virus and
avian flu (154). Instead, Shih, Wijaya and Brossard found that the dominant framework was
substantive, using the consequence frame which focuses on “the consequences of the diseases,
such as human life (victims), social impact, or economic impact (cost)”, the action frame which
“stresses any action(s) against the disease, including prevention, potential solutions, or
strategies” and the new evidence frame which “refers to new findings/results of research efforts”

7
including “discovery of new strains of the disease, new ways of spreading/transmitting, new
methods to prevent/cure/treat the disease, and so on” (149).
When covering health epidemics, scholars note the U.S. news media have consistently
relied on the frames of action and consequence (Shih, Wijaya and Brossard 2008; Ringo 2005)
and also tend to follow a pattern when reporting, with frames changing as the issue evolves
across stages of policy and scientific development, as well as providing a surge in coverage when
particular events occur, such as an initial outbreak, a death in a new country, etc. (Shih, Wijaya
and Brossard 2008; Ringo 2005). For this reason, coverage of the current outbreak is constantly
evolving and the frames are changing with the discovery of new evidence and implementation of
new policies.
Satirical News: The Daily Show and The Colbert Report
Scholars note that both The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report with
Stephen Colbert are unique as forms of news media in that they function outside of the
traditional journalistic structure and don’t have to adhere to the same rules as mainstream news
media (Faina 2013; Feldman 2013; Pew Research Center 2008; Hoffman and Young 2011;
Stewart 2007; Baym 2009; Baym 2010). Instead of being bound by journalistic conventions, they
use humor, parody, irony and satire to “provide the kind of critical challenge that is all but absent
in the so-called real news” (Baym 2009, 127). Furthermore, their form of journalistic storytelling
fits well with new technological developments (Merritt 1998, 138) in that they offer more than a
simple narrative, using online digital media to increase audience participation and providing
humor through “splicing together video clips of pundits and politicians contradicting
themselves” (Baym 2009, 20).

8
They use parody, which Gray et. al defines as a “strategy that attacks a particular text or
genre, making fun of how that text or genre operates” (2008, 16) and satire, which they define as
“humor’s most overtly political genre” (2008, 11) to educate the public and “encourage one’s
audience to scrutinize” (2008, 11). Faina argues this format is particularly powerful because
individuals often engage politically with one another through making humorous remarks about
said politics, and this therefore “bridges the gap” between journalists and news consumers (2013,
547) lending to an engaged, concerned public, a major goal of public journalism (Merritt 1998).
Jon Stewart: A representative for the people
Scholars found that The Daily Show included as much substance in its election coverage
as traditional network news (Fox, Koloen, & Sahin, 2007), regular viewers are highly informed
and are most likely to score in the highest percentile on knowledge of current affairs (Pew
Research Center, 2008) and in a 2009 Pew Research Center poll, Americans chose Stewart as
their “most trusted newscaster”, beating out all other mainstream news anchors.
Baym argues Stewart’s interviewing style should serve as a model for other television
journalists, since the comedian focuses on discussion and deliberation and “approaches [the
interviews] as an interpersonal exchange” conducting interviews like a “conversation among
friends or respectful acquaintances” (2009, 115). Furthermore, scholars indicate that Stewart has
the ability to navigate between being physically expressive with his comedy and being a serious
authoritative news anchor, thus maintaining an air of sincerity by using genuine emotion to tap
into ethos while also emphasizing important points and calling out specific sources with facts
and clips (Hersey 2013; Baym 2009; Baym 2010). Scholars claim that by cursing and ranting
Stewart goes outside of what is expected, embodying genuine audience emotion (Gray et al.
2008, 148), relating to the audience and also serving as their representative (Hersey 2013, 551).

9
Stephen Colbert: Up to interpretation
Scholars note that The Colbert Report differs from The Daily Show in that the show’s
satire operates almost exclusively through the use of parody (Baym 2010; Hersey 2013;
LaMarre, Landreville and Beam 2009; Feldman 2013) and is therefore more complex for
audiences to understand. On the show, Colbert plays a character, one who scholars suggest is the
ultimate prophet of conservatism, advocating for extreme conservative positions, spewing
hyperbole and often emulating Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly (Hersey 2013; Baym 2010; Jones
2009). Scholars claim his use of irony, saying the exact opposite of what is meant, makes it
important for the audience to decode his comedy (Hersey 2013; Feldman 2013, Jones 2009).
According to Jones, “the ambiguity introduced by the double-voiced utterances of
parodic performance virtually guarantees enormous leeway in audience interpretations of the
political critiques being made” (2009, 203). In fact, LaMarre, Landreville and Beam found that
while both conservatives and liberals found The Colbert Report equally funny, they discerned
different meanings from his satire, with liberals perceiving him as satirical, and conservatives
taking the satire “at face value” and assuming he is targeting liberals with his humor (2009).
Scholars suggest that in order to understand Colbert’s overall message on an issue it is
important to look beyond explicit content and instead at what is implied by his statements—who
and what the targets of his comedy actually are (Feldman 2013).
Satirical News as an Alternative to Mainstream Media Coverage
Many researchers discern a difference between “hard news” and “soft news” (Hoffman
and Young 2011, Stewart 2007, Pew Research Center 2009). However, other scholars argue that
these “softer” news programs offer an important and much-needed critical inquiry and debate,
since the shows aren’t held to the same standards as mainstream news outlets and can offer more

than a simple narrative (Baym 2009, 20) as well as cut through partisan talking points (Feldman
2013, 434). Scholars suggest these programs are also able to hold mainstream press accountable
through their critiques, focusing on contradictory statements made on both conservative and
liberal programs, including CNN, MSNBC and Fox, which gives the public a chance to think
critically about the news they receive (Pew Research Center 2009; Baym 2009; Feldman 2013).
10
However, other scholars argue the influence of traditional news content can’t be fully
negated by Stewart and Colbert’s critiques, since the original news clips are most often the
content for their material and the original frame is still present (Feldman 2013, 447).
Furthermore, since humor is the method being used to raise awareness of political and social
issues, other literature claims there is a risk these shows trivialize serious problems and lower
their perceived severity (Moyer-Guse, Mahood, & Brookes 2011).
Influence of Satirical News on Public Discourse and Engagement
Studies have found that the use of humor in late-night political satire programs, especially
complex humor such as parody and satire, leads to more persuasive messages, and that audiences
will therefore be “more likely to take an active interest in our system of government” (Polk,
Young and Holbert 2009, 16). This satirical form of presenting news might in fact activate
certain constructs in audiences, which make them more likely to evaluate their efficacy and
change behaviors or take action (Hoffman and Young, 2011). In fact, Gregory and Cichello
found that after appearing on The Colbert Report, a political candidate receives a significant
increase in donations, and therefore these entertainment programs are relevant in today’s
political process and should be taken seriously as “variables that have real influence” (2011).
However, Hart and Hartelius argue that Jon Stewart and similar programs are guilty of
being too cynical, which makes the viewing public cynical about the political process and

therefore disengaged with it (2007). However, there are others that state this cynicism is directed
at the traditional news reporting covering the political process (Faina 2013, 548). Regardless, it
can’t be denied these non-traditional news programs are extremely popular, easy to disseminate
on the web and have significant effects on political participation (Baym 2009, Baym 2010,
Hoffman and Young 2011, Feldman 2013; Faina 2013).
11
Looking Ahead
While some research has been done on the ways in which traditional media frames health
epidemics, none has been done on the current Ebola crisis, because we are in the midst of it –
which will be interesting to analyze in the future since there is much criticism of the way the
media are handling it. It is important to look at the ways The Daily Show and The Colbert Report
present this crisis, since they are drawing from the frames employed by traditional media for
their material and their shows have a large impact on the viewing public and its engagement.
This study will address this issue by looking at whether or not they frame the crisis similarly to
the way traditional media has in the past, and who they choose to target with their humor –
which are important to study to further understand public reaction to this Ebola epidemic.
Method
Relevant content from The Colbert Report and The Daily Show was found on Comedy
Central’s website using the shows’ video search function. All video clips that included the exact
word “Ebola” were collected for analysis, except for videos created specifically for the web and
recaps of previous weeks and episodes, in order to capture what viewers would be watching on
television. Program segments were treated as the unit of analysis rather than full episodes.
However, when there was a segment in which Ebola was mentioned but not the main topic of
discussion (for example, if a media clip is shown during the segment in which a senatorial

candidate is asked about Obama’s handling of the Ebola crisis, and the segment only comments
on the candidate’s views on Obama as a president and not on Ebola itself) then that clip was not
counted and no data on it was recorded. For The Daily Show, search dates ranged from the first
clip mentioning the 2014 Ebola virus on August 5, 2014, through the first clip mentioning Ebola
after the midterm elections, on November 5, 2014. For The Colbert Report, search dates ranged
from the first clip mentioning the 2014 Ebola virus on July 17, 2014 to the first clip mentioning
Ebola after the midterm elections, on November 5, 2014. This resulted in 25 videos from The
Daily Show and 21 videos from The Colbert Report. Clips were streamed from the Comedy
Central website and coded for several key variables by one undergraduate student.
12
First, general information on each video clip was recorded, including its title, air date,
length and whether it included a guest interview. If there was a guest interview, the guest’s
stance toward the Ebola crisis was coded as either being concerned, dismissive, or
neutral/indeterminate. The guest’s area of expertise was also coded (e.g., journalist/author,
scientist/academic, doctor/health professional, entertainer/actor, humanitarian/activist,
reporter/anchor, politician, etc.) Guests were categorized according to their most relevant role;
for example, Bill Clinton is best known as the former President of the United States, but he was
coded as a humanitarian because he went on The Daily Show representing the Clinton Global
Initiative. This coding was done to see whether either program brought more guests on the show
that felt a certain way about the virus (be it concerned or dismissive).
Explicit Statements
The coding scheme was devised to capture the surface-level, or explicit, claims made by
Colbert and Stewart regarding the reality and severity of the Ebola virus as a worldwide threat
and a threat to the United States, as well as the possible implicit messages about the virus that

existed in in the shows’ satirical content. Specifically, each video clip was coded as to whether
or not it included explicit statements that either affirmed or challenged 1) the reality of the Ebola
virus as an epidemic; 2) the severity/seriousness of the Ebola virus as a threat to U.S.
citizens/people in the U.S.; 3) U.S. government action to help solve/cure the Ebola epidemic.
The amount of statements either affirming or challenging these three concepts was coded for
each segment.2 Only statements from Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart and the shows’
correspondents were recorded (not those made by interview guests).
13
Hypothesis 1: The programs will affirm the threat of Ebola as an epidemic and U.S.
action to stop the spread, but challenge the severity of the threat of the virus to the U.S.
As outlined in the literature review by several scholars, The Colbert Report and The Daily Show
function outside the norms of traditional journalism (Faina 2013; Feldman 2013; Pew Research
Center 2008; Hoffman and Young 2011; Stewart 2007; Baym 2009; Baym 2010) and often
critique traditional news on their programs in order to make a larger point about a subject or
draw attention to contradictory information (Baym 2009, 20). Currently, traditional news media
is handling the topic of Ebola in a problematic way, focusing on the virus spreading to the U.S.
and infecting the American public (which as touched on in the literature review, is leading to an
ill-informed, panicked public). Therefore, I predict the satirical programs will affirm the virus as
a threat, just not necessarily to people in the U.S. In order to minimize panic, they will
acknowledge the problem of the epidemic but challenge whether it poses a severe threat to
people in America.
2
Specifically,
a
value
of
“1”
was
assigned
for
“affirm”
when
a
statement
was
made
affirming
the
reality
of
the
virus,
the
severity
of
the
virus
as
a
threat
to
the
U.S.,
and
the
U.S.
having
an
obligation
to
help
stop
the
spread
of
the
virus,
and
a
value
of
“1”
was
assigned
for
“challenge”
when
a
statement
was
made
challenging
the
reality
of
the
virus,
the
severity
of
the
virus
as
a
threat
to
the
U.S.,
and
the
U.S.
having
an
obligation
to
help
stop
the
spread
of
the
virus

14
Intended Targets of Humor
Another set of codes was used to capture the intended targets of Colbert or Stewart’s
comedy about the Ebola virus. Targets, which weren’t mutually exclusive, included 1)
conservative or Republican groups or individuals, including politicians and media figures; 2)
liberal or Democrat groups or individuals, including politicians and media figures, with a
specific code for 3) the Obama administration; 4) other politicians, including senators and
members of Congress, both Democrat, Republican and otherwise; 5) politicization of the Ebola
crisis; 6) skepticism of the Ebola virus being a reality/threat; 7) concern about the spread of the
Ebola virus/the virus as an epidemic; 8) U.S. policy, in general, on the Ebola virus; 9) specific
U.S. policies and programs designed to stop the spread of Ebola in the United States; 10)
scientists; 11) doctors; 12) news media coverage of the virus; 13) the American public; 14)
international organizations and figures, such as WHO and the UN; 15) national organizations,
such as the CDC and NIH; and 16) other, including anything that didn’t fit into the other 15
categories.
The focus of these categories was to find the intended target of the shows’ criticism and
humor, which therefore represented the implicit statements made on the Ebola virus, rather than
the explicit ones. Since the shows rely on irony for much of their humor (Hersey 2013; Feldman
2013, Jones 2009), understanding and counting these implicit statements is extremely important
for analyzing how the programs portray the Ebola virus. This is particularly true for The Colbert
Report since, as discussed earlier, Colbert “plays a character” and many of his explicit statements
are up for interpretation by the audience. When talking about the Ebola virus for example,
Colbert might be parodying people who are concerned about the spread of the virus even when
his statement doesn’t say so explicitly. Consider the following quotation from one of the

15
episodes of his show: “You can smell the fear, thanks to heroes like CNN who asked the
question, ‘Ebola: The ISIS of Bological Agents?’ Yes, it is. Without a doubt.”3 The intended
target of Colbert’s humor was coded as concern about the spread of the virus and news media
coverage of the virus, not skepticism about the virus.
Hypothesis 2: The majority of the targets of humor on the two programs will be the
mainstream news coverage of Ebola, as well as concern for the spread of the disease.
Since these satirical programs often focus on the ways in which traditional media is contradicting
itself, and how these outlets might be failing at their responsibility to properly inform consumers
(Baym 2009, 20), I predict both Colbert and Stewart will target the mainstream news outlets’
coverage of Ebola in their humor. Furthermore, I predict the hosts will target concern about the
virus spreading in order to fulfill the traditional journalistic responsibility of minimizing harm
during a public health epidemic (Shih, Wijaya and Brossard 2008; Garrett 2001).
Framing
Lastly, each video clip was coded for if it used each of six, nonmutually exclusive public
health epidemic frames, whose definitions were adapted from Shih, Wijaya and Brossard (2008).
The coding of the frames took into account the dialogue of guests as well as that of the
correspondents and hosts, unlike the coding of explicit messages and intended targets which was
only based on statements from Stewart, Colbert or correspondents. The substantive frame
consisted of consequence, action and new evidence frames. A consequence frame was coded if
there were statements made about the consequences of the virus, including the social impact,
human life/victims of the Ebola epidemic, economic impact/costs of the epidemic, as well as any
social/political issues generated by the spread of the disease, as in the following The Daily Show
example:
3 http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/hhqgbw/ebolapalooza

16
Stewart: Who knew how many New Yorkers that man infected in that one, albeit a
awesome, day?4
An action frame was coded if Ebola was discussed with regards to any actions taken against the
disease, including potential solutions, prevention against contraction or spread of the disease, or
strategies being taken against the virus, as in the following example from The Colbert Report:
Colbert: On Friday, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and New York Governor
Cuomo announced both states would enforce a mandatory 21-day quarantine for anyone who has
come into contact with Ebola…leading to the immediate quarantine of a nurse returning from
Sierra Leone,.Kaci Hickox, who, after landing at Newark Airport, underwent hours of
interrogation…5
A new evidence frame was coded if the Ebola virus was discussed with reference to new
findings/results of research efforts, including new ways of spreading/transmitting the virus,
discovery of new strains of the disease, new methods to prevent/treat/cure the disease, etc. as in
the following example from The Colbert Report:
Colbert: Folks, as I mentioned in the A Block, we’re in the midst of an Ebola outbreak.
Our only hope is an experimental drug called Z-Mapp.6
The dramatic frame consisted of reassurance, conflict and uncertainty frames. A reassurance
frame was coded if the segment expressed that the public shouldn’t be worried about the spread
of Ebola, and that steps were being taken to control the disease, as in the following example from
The Daily Show:
Stewart: So maybe it’s not too bad, even if this one patient is infected. We can handle it.7
A conflict frame was coded if the segment focused on differences in opinions, outright
arguments and disagreements among news sources about the severity of the Ebola virus,
4 http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/l5q42o/democalypse-2014---south-by-south-mess--malady-on-34th-street
5 http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/8hjpi2/ebola-in-new-york
6 http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/q2857u/cheating-death---pandemic-health
7 http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/brv1hx/pox-and-the-city

antagonism between opposing stances or opinions, both political and scientific, etc. For example,
a conflict frame would be coded for this statement from The Daily Show:
17
Stewart: Alright, so we can’t count on the news media to take a reasoned approach…I
don’t know if you [the news media] know this but you’ve had people on your own
channels telling you this is not appropriate.8
Finally, an uncertainty frame was coded if the segment was characterized by uncertainties about
any aspects of the Ebola epidemic/the idea that much is still unknown about the virus, including
the cure, the possible spread, the cause of the virus, etc. For example, an uncertainty frame is
reflected in stories about the contraction of the virus in America and consequent uncertainty
about how many people might get the virus in the U.S., as well as uncertainty as to where the
infected person traveled, how many people they came in contact with, etc., as in the following
example from The Colbert Report:
Vieira: “Have you been scared of Ebola by the way?”
Colbert: “Have I? Oh, I’m terrified of Ebola. Do you have Ebola?”9
Hypothesis 3: Both programs will mostly use a consequence frame and an action frame
in their coverage of the Ebola epidemic, following the framing strategies of traditional news
outlets during a public health epidemic.
As touched upon in the literature review, these satirical programs make a significant impact on
public discourse and engagement, and often inform their audiences as well traditional news
programs do (Fox, Koloen, & Sahin, 2007). For that reason, I predict they will follow the
framing strategies used by traditional news outlets during past public health epidemics (Shih,
Wijaya and Brossard 2008), substantively framing the Ebola epidemic and therefore keeping the
public informed in a responsible way.
8 http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/kgr74h/au-bon-panic
9 http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/jjpinj/meredith-vieira

18
Results
The results below focus on differences between the two programs, and only relative
percentages and frequencies are reported since the clips were not randomly sampled from a
larger population.
General Overview of Ebola Coverage
Since the first time the 2014 Ebola crisis was mentioned on The Colbert Report on July
17, 2014 to the day after the midterm elections on November 5, 2014, it paid less attention to
Ebola than The Daily Show, with 21 segments mentioning Ebola to The Daily Show’s 25.
Coverage of Ebola on both programs peaked in October, with 13 The Daily Show segments
mentioning Ebola and 15 on The Colbert Report.
On The Daily Show four episodes (16.0%) featured a guest interview that talked about or
commented on Ebola, as did four episodes (19.0%) of The Colbert Report. While Colbert
interviewed an equal number of guests who were dismissive and concerned about Ebola, Stewart
interviewed more guests who were concerned. Of the four guests interviewed on The Daily
Show, three (75.0%) were outwardly concerned about the spread of Ebola and one (25.0%) was
dismissive of the issue. Of Colbert’s four guests, two (50.0%) were concerned about the spread
of Ebola and two (50.0%) were dismissive.
Of the eight guests interviewed on the two shows, a quarter (25.0%) were members of
Congress, a quarter (25.0%) were doctors, a quarter (25.0%) were humanitarians and a quarter
(25.0%) were television hosts. Each show interviewed one guest from each of the
aforementioned categories, and only the two guests who were members of Congress had
differing views on Ebola. Both humanitarians (Bill Clinton on The Daily Show and David

19
Miliband on The Colbert Report) expressed concern about the spread of Ebola, mostly with
respect to countries in West Africa, as in the following statements:
Clinton: This is an emergency because nobody knows how to cure this. We know that
more than 2,600 people have died and more than that have been infected.10
Miliband: My organization, The International Rescue Committee, has been in West
Africa, in Liberia and Sierra Leone for the past 15 years. Thank goodness we are there,
500 staff who are now able to deploy to fight this Ebola virus, which is very, very
dangerous, killed at least 5,000 people. The situation there is many times worse than the
official figures suggest.11
Both doctors (Dr. Atul Gawande on The Daily Show and Dr. Kent Sepkowitz on The Colbert
Report) interviewed on the programs were dismissive about the spread of Ebola, mostly with
respect to the virus’s possible spreading within the United States, as in the following statements:
Gawande: We are not in danger of this [Ebola] being an epidemic spreading through our
country here.12
Sepkowitz: In the household it’s not even that contagious…this [Ebola] is not that
contagious a disease, which I know all of us keep saying. We’re like, come on already.13
Both television hosts (Bill O’Reilly on The Daily Show and Meredith Vieira on The Colbert
Report) were concerned about the spread of Ebola, mostly with respect to its possible spread in
the United States, as evidenced in the following statements:
Stewart: I know you’re very frightened [about Ebola] and I just want to let you know
everything’s going to be okay. There you go, baby (hands O’Reilly hand sanitizer).14
Vieira: I had an interview with Dr. Besser from ABC News, who was under voluntary
quarantine [for Ebola] I guess, but he sneezed and shook my hand and I was too polite
not to shake it, and then I was terrified.15
10 http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/em6pxo/bill-clinton-pt--1
11 http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/tqbn3t/david-miliband
12 http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/hz2xb6/atul-gawande
13 http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/hhhqqd/deathpocalypse-now---ebola-in-america---kent-sepkowitz
14 http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/4u4hqr/bill-o-reilly
15 http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/jjpinj/meredith-vieira

20
On The Daily Show, Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro expressed concern about the spread of Ebola,
with respect to its possible spread in the United States, as in the following statement:
Castro: It’s been tough. The Ebola situation came up. We [Congress] should have been
back in Washington working for the American people. 16
On The Colbert Report, Illinois Rep. Tammy Duckworth was dismissive about the spread of
Ebola with respect to the virus coming to the United States, as in the following statement:
Colbert: They’re [refugees] bringing Ebola into the United States.
Duckworth: No, they’re not.17
Overall, both hosts interviewed guests with differing opinions on Ebola and neither host favored
interviewing a certain “type” of guest.
Explicit Messaging
Focusing now on the explicit messaging about the Ebola virus on The Daily Show and
The Colbert Report, Table 1 shows that both hosts overwhelmingly affirmed the reality of the
Ebola virus as an epidemic (100%), with neither host challenging this concept explicitly. The
following are examples of explicit statements made by the hosts affirming the Ebola virus as an
epidemic:
Stewart: Because of Ebola we’re all gonna die soon anyway. 18
Colbert: Now folks, there’s so much horrible news out there right now. The Ebola
epidemic is spreading…19
The results can also be seen graphically in Figure 1 in the Appendix.
16 http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/3iqyw5/democalypse-2014---south-by-south-mess--joaquin-castro
17 http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/nx3ewk/better-know-a-district---illinois-s-8th---tammy-duckworth
18 http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/hz2xb6/atul-gawande
19 http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/6d36zv/caped-cash-cows

21
Table 1. Explicit Messaging about Ebola on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.
The Daily Show
The Colbert Report
Statement Type
% %
Reality of the Ebola virus as an epidemic
Affirm 100.0 100.0
Challenge 0.0 0.0
N 20.0 22.0
Severity of the Ebola virus as a threat to the
United States
Affirm 37.8 82.4
Challenge 62.2 17.6
N 37.0 34.0
United States government action to fight
Ebola
Affirm 86.7 83.3
Challenge 13.3 16.7
N 15.0 12.0
Any Type
Affirm 65.3 88.2
Challenge 34.7 11.8
N 72.0 68.0
In The Daily Show, the most frequent form of explicit challenge to the view of the Ebola
virus was relative to the severity of the Ebola virus as a threat to the United States, and 62.2% of
the explicit statements challenged the severity of the threat as compared to The Colbert Report,
which explicitly challenged Ebola as a threat to the United States only 17.6% of the time. The
following are examples of explicit statements from each program challenging the Ebola virus as
a threat to the United States:
Stewart: He’s got a fever and diarrhea. That’s it? You’re saying he could have Ebola, or
maybe he just got his lunch here (points to restaurant graphic)…Now look probably this
guy doesn’t even have Ebola.20

22
Colbert: Yes, Ebola virus has never appeared outside of Africa, but Gingrey may have
caught it from one of these kids already because I believe one of the symptoms is
baseless fear leaking out of your ass.21
In The Colbert Report, a majority (82.4%) of the statements affirmed the severity of the threat of
Ebola to the U.S., as opposed to The Daily Show, which explicitly affirmed Ebola as a threat to
the United States 37.8% of the time. The following are some examples of these explicit affirming
statements:
Stewart: It [Ebola] will liquefy your organs if someone sneezes on you on your way to
Tampa.22
Colbert: It’s day 29 of America’s Ebola crisis. (backs away from Ebola graphic) This
thing is going to kill us all!23
Explicit statements affirming United States action to fight the Ebola virus (both in the
country and outside it) were a majority of the explicit statements made regarding the notion in
both programs—with 65.3% of statements on The Daily Show and 88.2% of statements on The
Colbert Report affirming the action, as in the following examples:
Stewart: I guess quarantines and travel bans are the best way to fight the disease.24
Colbert: Tonight, a deadly virus hits America. President Obama, it is time to reinforce
our salad bar sneeze guards. 25
Explicit statements challenging United States action against the Ebola epidemic were
made a minority of the time, with 34.7% of statements on The Daily Show and 11.8% on The
Colbert Report challenging the notion, as in the following examples:
21 http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/z3gi0q/questionable-compassion-for-child-immigrants
22 http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/scpr02/threatflix
23 http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/8hjpi2/ebola-in-new-york
25 http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/v8mtsf/intro---12-2-14

23
Stewart: Quarantining West Africa would make the problem worse. Which to be fair is
what Congress is used to doing.26
Colbert: With our government just clueless about this crisis…27
Both programs were more likely to include explicit statements affirming the virus as an epidemic
and affirming U.S. action against the epidemic. Notably, The Daily Show was more likely to
include explicit statements challenging the severity of the Ebola virus as a threat to the United
States than it was to include statements affirming the severity; The Colbert Report was more
likely to include affirming than challenging statements.
Overall, of all the statements made about Ebola in segments on both programs,
approximately two-thirds of the statements explicitly affirmed the reality of the Ebola virus as an
epidemic, the severity of the Ebola virus as a threat to the U.S. and affirmed U.S. action to stop
the epidemic. However, more than three-quarters of The Colbert Report statements explicitly
affirmed the severity of the threat of the Ebola virus to the U.S., whereas less than half of The
Daily Show statements did so.
Intended Targets of Humor
Table 2 displays the distributions of intended targets of Ebola humor across the two
shows. The results can also be seen graphically in Figure 2 in the Appendix. On The Daily Show
and The Colbert Report, the most frequent target of humor was concern or panic about the spread
of Ebola, representing 33.3% and 36.0% of the total targets on each of the programs,
respectively. This humor can be seen in many of the hosts’ statements and movements in which
they “panic” and act overly concerned in order to parody concern about the virus, as in the
following examples:
26 http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/kgr74h/au-bon-panic
27 http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/x6d5sz/deathpocalypse-now---ebola-in-america---50-states-of-grave

Stewart: What the [bleep]? (Sprays self with antibacterial gel while wearing Hazmat suit)
We are all in danger!28
Colbert: I assume everyone West of the Mississippi has been quarantined in the Ebola
afterscape. And we will have full coverage of that crisis tomorrow – if there is a
tomorrow. In the meantime, no one touch me.29
24
Table 2. Intended Targets of Ebola Humor in The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.
The Daily Show
The Colbert Report
Target of Humor
% %
Democrats/Liberals 3.3 1.2
Obama administration 0.0 1.2
Republicans/Conservatives 11.7 9.3
Other politicians 10.0 3.5
Politicization of Ebola 10.0 3.5
Skepticism about the spread of Ebola 3.3 1.2
Concern/panic about the spread of Ebola 33.3 36.0
U.S. policy in general 10.0 2.3
Specific U.S. policy to stop spread of Ebola
3.3 7.0
in the U.S.
Scientists 0.0 1.2
Doctors 5.0 3.5
News media coverage of Ebola 26.7 15.1
The public 15.0 12.8
International organizations 3.3 0.0
National organizations 1.7 1.2
Other 1.7 1.2
N (targets) 60.0 86.0
This emphasis by The Colbert Report on targeting concern about the virus despite the abundance
of his explicit statements affirming the threat of Ebola is unsurprising, given that a critique of
concern about Ebola is mostly implicit in his parodic performance as a conservative pundit.
While the hosts may act like they are concerned about the virus, and their explicit statements
29 http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/v6tds1/protests-in-hong-kong

25
appear to say they are, they are in fact using irony and sarcasm to target the very concern they
are portraying.
Both programs also frequently target their humor at news media coverage of Ebola. In
The Daily Show Ebola coverage, the news media represented more than a quarter of the targets
of its humor (26.7%), and in The Colbert Report news media represented 15.1% of targets. The
following are examples of statements on the programs targeting news media:
Stewart: The problem is the media was infected by Ebola fear a long time ago, now that
it’s had time to incubate they’re showing extreme symptoms.30
Colbert: Now, fortunately folks, for every medical professional out there reassuring us,
there’s a TV professional re-scaring us.31
The third most frequent target of both programs’ humor was the public. In The Daily
Show Ebola coverage, the public represented 15% of the targets of its humor, and in The Colbert
Report the public represented 12.8% of targets. The following are examples of statements on the
programs targeting the public:
Stewart: What is wrong with us? We were the home of the brave. Or does the song go,
‘for the land of the free, unless you have a fever, in which case, we prefer you get the
[bleep] out of here.’32
Colbert: It is clear that we only have one chance to stop this spreading panic. We must
isolate the source of the outbreak: Our imagination!33
The Daily Show diverged from The Colbert Report in its targeting of politicians and the
politicization of Ebola: the program targeted each six times (10%), compared to The Colbert
Report which targeted them half the amount of times (3.5%). Across both programs, in
30 http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/zec15p/germs-of-engagement
31 http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/x6d5sz/deathpocalypse-now---ebola-in-america---50-states-of-grave
33 http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/nm2atj/ebola-panic

approximately 77% of cases, a critique of politicization or politicians went hand-in-hand with a
critique of conservatives or Republicans, as in this example from The Daily Show:
Stewart: Why does [Republican New Jersey Governor Chris] Christie have to be such a
dick about everything? This woman put her life on the line to help dying patients…so
maybe this quarantine is a bit of an overreaction. Or as our freedom, personal-liberty
lovin’ Congress calls it, government under-reach.34
The Colbert Report was also more than twice as likely as The Daily Show to target specific
policies or programs designed to stop Ebola from entering the United States, such as stricter
border policies, while The Daily Show was more than twice as likely as The Colbert Report to
target United States policy in general, such as its participation, or lack thereof, in the Ebola crisis
in West Africa.
26
Targets that appeared with relative infrequency across both programs were the Obama
administration, Democrats and liberals, national and international organizations, skepticism
about Ebola and scientists.
Framing
The results of the framing analysis are presented in Table 3, displaying the frequency of
each frame used in The Daily Show and The Colbert Report segments. The most common frame
used overall was a substantive frame, appearing in a majority of segments. Approximately 74%
of all the segments from both shows used a substantive frame, and approximately 67% used a
dramatic frame. Approximately half of all segments from both shows used an action frame
(52.2%), while a consequence frame (41.3%) and a conflict frame (39.1%) were also relatively
common. The reassurance frame was relatively rare, appearing in approximately 15% of total
segments, although it was more likely to appear in The Daily Show (24%).

27
Table 3. Framing of Ebola in The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.
The Daily Show
The Colbert Report
Frame
% %
Substantive 76.0 71.4
Consequence 40.0 42.9
Action 44.0 61.9
New evidence 24.0 23.8
Dramatic 64.0 71.4
Reassurance 24.0 4.8
Conflict 48.0 28.6
Uncertainty 20.0 42.9
N (segments) 25.0 21.0
Although the Ebola epidemic was frequently framed in terms of conflict, which is a
dramatic frame, this frame was also subject to critique. Politicians and politicization of the virus
—which are inherent in the political and ideological conflicts surrounding the epidemic—were a
target of humor in 83.3% of conflict-framed segments from The Colbert Report, 66.7% of
conflict-framed segments from The Daily Show, and 72.2% of conflict-framed segments overall.
More results of the framing analysis are shown in Table 4, which displays the breakdown
of substantive and dramatic framing into their individual frames (consequence, action, new
evidence, etc.) and how often each frame was used in The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.
These results are also shown graphically in Figure 3 in the Appendix.

28
Table 4. Substantive Framing of Ebola in The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.
The Daily Show
The Colbert Report
Frame
% %
Consequence 37.0 33.3
Action 40.7 48.1
New evidence 22.2 18.5
N (frames) 27.0 27.0
Table 5. Dramatic Framing of Ebola in The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.
The Daily Show
The Colbert Report
Frame
% %
Reassurance 26.1 6.3
Conflict 52.2 37.6
Uncertainty 21.7 56.3
N (frames) 23.0 16.0
Of the total number of substantive frames used in both programs, the Ebola virus was
mostly presented in an action frame (44.4%) and a consequence frame (35.2%). Of the total
number of dramatic frames used in both programs, the epidemic was mostly presented in a
conflict frame (46.2%) and an uncertainty frame (35.9%). The Daily Show, overall, used a
conflict frame twice as many times as The Colbert Report, and The Colbert Report used an
uncertainty frame almost twice as many times as The Daily Show.
Discussion
The primary goal of this study was to systematically examine coverage of the 2014 Ebola
epidemic on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report in an effort to understand how these
programs represent the subject to their audiences. The analysis focused on explicit statements
about the Ebola epidemic, as well as on issue framing—both of which are aspects of coverage

that are the typical concerns in content analyses of traditional news media material, and which
prior research suggests is likely to affect the news consumers’ interpretation of the issue (Entman
1993; Feldman 2013; Shih, Wijaya and Brossard 2008). However, because The Colbert Report
and The Daily Show are not traditional news outlets, it was also important to capture and analyze
their satirical content along with their explicit content, which this study did by coding the
intended targets of the programs’ humor and critiques related to the Ebola epidemic.
29
The accumulated results show that The Colbert Report and The Daily Show present a
picture of the Ebola epidemic that is consistent with the view of medical professionals and
similar to the way traditional news media has covered public health epidemics in the past.
Furthermore, the results indicate that the hypotheses described earlier in the study were proven,
in that both programs affirmed the threat of Ebola as an epidemic and action to stop the spread,
but challenged its severity as a threat to the U.S—although the programs differed in how they did
so, with The Colbert Report challenging the threat through mostly implicit content and The Daily
Show mostly doing so explicitly. Furthermore, both programs mostly targeted Ebola concern and
news media coverage of the epidemic with their humor, which is consistent with their reputation
for pointing out contradictions in news and forcing viewers to think critically about the news
they receive (Pew Research Center 2009; Baym 2009; Feldman 2013), and a majority of their
satirical coverage framed the issue in an action frame and a consequence frame, consistent with
findings on framing in traditional news coverage of public health epidemics (Shih, Wijaya and
Brossard 2008).
Neither program explicitly challenged the reality of the Ebola virus as an epidemic, and
more than three-quarters of the statements on both programs regarding U.S. action to stop the
spread of the virus affirmed this action. This is consistent with the views of the humanitarians

both hosts brought on their programs for guest interviews, who affirmed the virus as an epidemic
and were concerned about its impact on people in West Africa, as well as many who say more
should be done to help the people devastated in those countries (Kaplan 2014; McClam 2014).
Furthermore, through the combined analysis of both the hosts’ explicit and implicit content, the
results show that while the hosts differed in their delivery of the message, they both challenged
the severity of the threat of the virus to the U.S.; a view consistent with that of the medical
professionals they brought on their programs and echoing the sentiments of most doctors and
scientists who have spoken about possible spread of the disease in the U.S. (Thompson 2014;
Brodwin 2014; Doucleff 2014; Besser 2014; Godfrey 2014).
The majority of Stewart’s statements (62.2%) explicitly challenged the threat of Ebola to
the U.S. and less than 20% of Colbert’s statements did so. Although Colbert was more likely
than Stewart to explicitly affirm the severity of the threat of Ebola, he was more likely to
implicitly critique concern about the threat. It was through Colbert’s frequent targeting of Ebola
concern (doing so in 76% of his segments) that this criticism is evident, despite the fact it was
often communicated via messages, which–on their face—actually affirmed the severity of the
spread of Ebola. He might have been expressing concern explicitly, but his ironic, satirical
imitation of the pundits on Fox News and other programs (Hersey 2013; Baym 2010; Jones
2009) implied he was actually targeting the concern. However, it must be noted that this
ambiguity means audiences might not fully “get” The Colbert Report’s criticism of panic in the
U.S. and the subsequent news media coverage feeding these fears; this could prove to be
particularly true for conservative viewers, who are more likely to watch the conservative news
sources Colbert imitates, and whose beliefs might be reinforced as a result of Colbert’s explicit
messages (LaMarre et al., 2009).
30

31
Nevertheless, despite the possible ambiguities in their delivery, it should be noted that
both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report downplayed and challenged the severity of the
threat of Ebola to the U.S., following the views of medical professionals, through their explicit
and implicit statements, in essence performing their journalistic duty to minimize harm and panic
during a public health epidemic (Shih, Wijaya and Brossard 2008; Garrett 2001; Wilkins 2005).
As predicted, both programs frequently targeted news media coverage of Ebola as well as
concern about the spread of the virus, echoing many of the sentiments criticizing traditional news
outlets for failing to handle the crisis responsibly by conveying unclear messages and inciting
panic (Boehlert 2014; Haglage 2014; CBS News 2014; Christensen 2014; Walton 2014; Faust
2014) This follows the satirical programs’ reputation for critiquing traditional news outlets,
focusing on contradictions and pointing out inconsistencies. However, while the programs target
traditional news outlets in order to force their viewers to think critically about the news they
receive, some of the targeted humor on the shows might have a negative impact on public
engagement. For example, politicians and U.S. policies were frequent targets of humor on both
shows. This is troubling because behavior change and risk communication theories suggest that,
in order to get people to take action on an issue like fighting the Ebola virus in Africa, they must
perceive the issue to be serious and personally consequential, and they must be offered
reasonable solutions to the problem (Witte, 1992). If The Colbert Report and The Daily Show
regularly downplay the severity of the Ebola virus while also criticizing the actions that can be
taken to alleviate the problem in other countries, public engagement might be less likely. On the
same note, stressing the self-interest of political leaders by directing humor at the politicization
of the virus, and highlighting their incompetence, can increase cynicism (Cappella & Jamieson,
1997). As such, it is possible that the programs’ satirical treatment of the Ebola epidemic could

undermine audience perceptions of the issue’s importance and the need for government action to
help other affected countries.
32
Lastly, as predicted, both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report mostly framed the
2014 Ebola epidemic in an action frame and a consequence frame, consistent with the framing
strategies used by traditional news outlets during past public health epidemics (Shih, Wijaya and
Brossard 2008). Over half of all segments from both shows discussed Ebola with regards to the
actions taken against the disease, potential solutions, etc. and just under half of all segments from
both shows discussed Ebola with regards to the social impact, human life/victims of the
epidemic, political/social issues generated by the spread of the disease, etc., which further proves
the satirical journalists were performing a civic, journalistic duty of keeping the public informed.
However, it should be noted that a conflict frame was also relatively common across the two
segments, appearing in just under 40% of all segments. This makes sense since the 2014 Ebola
epidemic is a complex issue that has become highly political, being discussed both around the
time of midterm elections and also being so closely tied to U.S. travel and health policies. It
follows then that both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report would reflect the complexity of
the issue and the reality of the conflict with which it has become entrenched, in their coverage.
Furthermore, The Colbert Report used an uncertainty frame when discussing Ebola in
just under half of its segments (42.9%), emphasizing what is unknown about the disease and
questioning its potential spread; this can possibly be attributed to Colbert’s parodying of other
news pundits and their “scary” coverage of the virus. It is important to remember that both The
Daily Show and The Colbert Report derive much of their content from “real” news coverage, and
as such, it is not surprising that the conflict frame and the uncertainty frame dominating
mainstream news coverage of Ebola is adopted, and present, on the programs. Looking at how

often concern about the virus and news media coverage itself was critiqued within these frames
shows that the satirical programs don’t necessarily agree with the way these issues are framed in
traditional media.
Conclusion
33
As with any study, there are limitations that should be kept in mind. First, because I
relied on Comedy Central’s “tags” of the word “Ebola” to gather video clips for data collection,
it’s possible there were some imperfections in their tagging process that might have led to me to
miss some of the coverage. Furthermore, there may have been other clips that discussed
something related to the virus that I missed because the word “Ebola” wasn’t tagged. Second,
there was no intercoder reliability recorded during data collection, as one undergraduate student
performed all of the coding. Due to the subjective nature of the analyses, in that the coder relied
on their interpretation of the television hosts’ statements and what they might actually mean by
those statements, this subjectivity may have affected the results in some way. Should further
research be done on this topic, it would certainly be helpful to have more than one researcher
coding the materials. Satire in general is also difficult to code, and this study tried to do so by
capturing both explicit and implicit message content. However if strides are made in further
breaking down the nuances of satire then it would be interesting to go back and look at the clips
again, coding through an updated lens. Third, clips were only collected over a relatively short
period of time, and it would be very interesting to replicate the study a year from now including
all the clips mentioning “Ebola” that have been produced since November 5, 2014 in order to
have a larger collection of data from which to draw conclusions about the satirical programs’
coverage of the epidemic.

Despite the limitations of the study, it does provide some important insight into how The
Colbert Report and The Daily Show function in today’s media landscape, particularly into how
they might function as traditional journalists with respect to the ways traditional media outlets
typically cover health crises. Especially due to the tumultuous nature of the current Ebola
epidemic, and the abundance of criticism surrounding the ways traditional news outlets like
CNN, MSNBC and Fox News have been portraying the outbreak, it will be interesting for
researchers in the future to look at how traditional media handled this crisis compared to non-traditional
media. In fact, I’m sure many studies will be done to understand the public’s reaction
to the 2014 Ebola epidemic as well as trying to quantify how much of the public’s panic can be
attributed to the media’s portrayal of the outbreak. Whether or not traditional media has framed
the current epidemic responsibly, or similarly to how the media framed past public health
epidemics, will be interesting to study—especially because this study found that both The Daily
Show and The Colbert Report have been framing the Ebola crisis similarly to how traditional
outlets framed epidemics in the past.
Moving forward, it is important to remember that the primary objective of both The Daily
Show and The Colbert Report is to provide comedic entertainment, and that when they cover
something serious like the Ebola epidemic on their programs there is always the chance they are
trivializing the issue and lowering its perceived severity (Moyer-Guse, Mahood & Brookes
2011), despite the fact they are substantively framing the issue the way traditional news media
has in the past. Therefore, while understanding how they portray issues is important, especially
because of the impact the programs have on viewers and their perceptions as journalists in the
public sphere, it is also necessary to understand that Stewart and Colbert’s main job is to poke
34

35
fun at politics and news using parody, irony and satire; not everyone watching their shows is
constructing the same meaning from their messages.

36
Appendix
Figure
1.
Explicit
Messaging
about
Ebola
on
The
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Daily
Show
and
The
Colbert
Report.
The
Daily
Show
The
Colbert
Report
Statement
Type
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure
2.
Intended
Targets
of
Ebola
Humor
in
The
Daily
Show
and
The
Colbert
Report
The
Daily
Show
The
Colbert
Report
Target
of
Humor

37
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure
3.
Framing
of
Ebola
in
The
Daily
Show
and
The
Colbert
Report.
Frame
The
Colbert
Report
The
Daily
Show

38
Bibliography
Babington, Charles. “Democrats Say GOP Budget Cuts Hurt Ebola Response.” The Associated
Press, taken from ABC News 2014.
Baym, G.. “Stephen Colbert’s parody of the postmodern.” Satire TV: Politics and Comedy in the
Post-network Era (2009): 123-146.
Baym’s chapter of the book provides a thorough examination of the ways in which
satirical news programs like the Colbert report can offer more than traditional news programs
can since they aren’t held to the same standards. He discusses the ways these non-traditional
outlets offer more than a simple narrative and allow the public to think critically about the news
they receive on standard programs, focusing specifically on The Colbert Report.
Baym, G.. From Cronkite to Colbert: The evolution of broadcast news. (2010).
Baym covers the present day satirical journalism by critiquing and analyzing scholars and
journalists over the past 50 years. He looks at the relationship twenty-first-century-broadcast
news has with civic participation and the public sphere, emphasizing that the public engages with
modern day humorous content in a way they don’t with traditional content. He states the best
hope for the future of televised journalism lies in both The Daily Show and The Colbert Report
since they serve the audience by scrutinizing politicians and conventional journalists who have
abandoned serious coverage.
Beavers, Staci L.. “Getting Political Science in on the Joke: Using The Daily Show and Other
Comedy to Teach Politics.” Political Science & Politics 44, no. 2 (2011): 415-419.
Beavers article provides an examination of the challenges of teaching U.S. politics to
reluctant audiences, like students, and investigates the potential of using political satire,
specifically focusing on The Daily Show, to do so. Beavers find promising possibilities for the
program encouraging students’ political engagement and critical-thinking skills.
Besser, Richard E. “Fight fear of Ebola with the facts.” The Washington Post 2014, October 15.
Boehlert, Eric. “The Media’s Ebola Coverage: The More You Watch, The Less You Know?”
Media Matters for America 2014, October 15.
Brodwin, Erin. “Here’s How Ebola Compares To Other Terrifying Diseases.” Business Insider
2014, October 20.
Carstensen, Melinda. “Study questions 21-day Ebola quarantine period.” Fox News 2014,
October 17.
CBS News correspondents. “Are health officials calming nerves or stoking panic amid ebola
outbreak?” CBS News. 2014, October 13.

39
Christensen, Jen. “Ebola is here: 5 reasons not to panic.” CNN.com 2014, August 5.
Doucleff, Michaeleen. “What’s My Risk Of Catching Ebola?” National Public Radio 2014,
October 23.
Entman, Robert M.. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of
Communication 43, no. 4 (1993): 51-58.
Entman provides an in-depth look at the idea of “framing” using case studies across
academic disciplines and defines, identifies and makes explicit various uses of framing. He
argues that this knowledge can contribute to greater social theories.
Faina, Joseph. “Public journalism is a joke: The case for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.”
Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism 14, no. 4 (2013): 541-555.
Faina’s article contends that Stewart and Colbert are both performing underappreciated
roles as public journalists and they serve to re-envision a mass mediated public journalism for
the 21st century. He makes the claim that their use of humor allows the public to participate more
in their content and that the journalists to in fact adhere to the principles of public journalism. He
also cites a lot of works that discuss the importance of the two news anchors in his literature
review.
Faust, Jeremy S.. “The Dangers of Overreacting.” Medical Examiner. 2014, October 13.
Feldman, Lauren. "Cloudy with a Chance of Heat Balls: The Portrayal of Global Warming on
The Daily Show and The Colbert Report.” International Journal of Communication 7 (2013):
430-51.
Feldman’s study was extremely helpful when constructing mine. Feldman provides an
in-depth examination of the portrayal of global warming on the two programs, setting her study
up much in the way mine is now – she provides quotations from the show that explicitly affirm
certain statements as well as challenge them, looks at the framing of the issue and uses several
tables for her results which I modeled mine after. Her conclusion also lends to the fact that
Colbert and Stewart provide facts about global warming which traditional media outlets fail to
do, and her argument is similar to mine in many ways.
Fox, J. R., Koloen, G. and Sahin, V.. “No Joke: A comparison of substance in The Daily Show
with John Stewart and broadcast network television coverage of the 2004 presidential election
campaign. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 51 (2007): 213-227.
Fox et. al study the political coverage of the first presidential debate and the political
conventions in 2004, specifically on The Daily Show and mainstream broadcast television
networks. The study finds that the traditional network coverage is more hype than substance and
Stewart’s coverage is more humor than substance, although both types of news outlets provided
the same amount of substantive information.

40
Garrett, Laurie. "Understanding Media's Response to Epidemics." Public Health Reports 116,
no. 2 (2001): 87-91.
Garrett touches on the obligations media has during a crisis, which include minimizing
harm, making sure the public trusts the coverage, providing information quickly and accurately,
not releasing all the information at once, remaining in charge, and not inflating small issues into
something much bigger. Garrett uses examples like smallpox, the 1995 Ebola epidemic and the
plague in Surat, India in 1994.
Gray, J., Jones, JP and Thompson, E.. Satire TV: Politics and Comedy in the Post-network Era.
New York: New York University Press , 2008.
The book covers almost anything anyone could want to know about modern political
comedy, satirical journalism and their interaction with public discourse and engagement. The
first part of the book covers satire, satirizing presidents, candidates on television and what post-era
we are in. The second and third parts of the book cover The Daily Show and Jon Stewart as
both a comedian and a journalist, The Colbert Report and the way Colbert parodies
conservatives, the hosts interviewing guests on their show, and even why Mitt Romney won’t go
on the show. The book goes on in more detail about other aspects of comedic journalism, but
these were the most relevant to my paper.
Gregory, Travis S. and Cichello, Paul. “Quantifying the Colbert Bump in Political Campaign
Donations: A Fixed Effects Approach.” Haverford College Department of Economics (2011).
Gregory and Cichello’s study uses an econometric model to quantify the relationship
between appearing on The Colbert Report and increases in political campaign donations. They
find that “comedy” programs should be taken seriously by political strategists, and that they have
real influence over a candidate’s level of campaign donations – the conclusions have statistical
and economic significance, with an expected percent increase in donations in the month after
appearing on the show.
Godfrey, Courtney. “Louisville physicians say don’t panic over Ebola.” WDRB News 2014,
October 14.
Haglage, Abby. “Ebola Panic Is Worse Than the Disease.” The Daily Beast 2014, October 9.
Hart, Roderick P. and Hartelius, E. Johanna. “Critical Forum: The Political Sins of Jon Stewart.”
Critical Studies in Media Communication 24, no.3 (2007): 263-272.
Hart and Hartelius argue in their article that Jon Stewart engages in unbridled political
cynicism, plants false knowledge into the public, and that because he is so popular, especially
with young people, he is committing a sin by injecting cynicism into the public, making them
disillusioned with politics and uninterested in participating. They basically disagree with most of
the other stories and are a good resource for looking at scholars that don’t like Stewart.

41
Hersey, Curt W.. “Nothing But the Truthiness: A History of Television News Parody and its
Entry into the Journalistic Field.” Department of Communications, Georgia State University
2013.
Hersey provides an in-depth examination of the relationship between journalism and
politics through an archival research of scripts, programs and surrounding discourses from the
past programs on network and cable, from the 1960s all the way up until more recent examples
of the genre. Hersey analyses the role of television news parody in the past and now.
Hoffman, Lindsay H. and Young, Dannagal G.. “Satire, Punch Lines, and the Nightly News:
Untangling Media Effects on Political Participation.” Communication Research Reports 28, no. 2
(2011): 159-168.
Hoffman and Young’s article looks at the differences between The Daily Show, The
Colbert Report, The Late Show and The Tonight Show, analyzing the ways their comedy differs
and how they affect political participation. Their results find that viewing satire or parody has
positive and significant effects on political participation.
Kaplan, Rebecca. “Samantha Power: U.S. intervention helping Ebola fight in West Africa.” CBS
News – Face the Nation. 2014, November 2.
LaMarre, Heather L., Landreville, Kristen D., and Beam, Michael A.. “The Irony of Satire:
Political Ideology and the Motivation to See What You Want to See in The Colbert Report.” The
International Journal of Press/Politics 14, no. 2 (2009): 212-231.
LaMarre, Landreville and Beam investigate the biased message processing of political
satire in The Colbert Report and the influence of political ideology on perceptions of the host.
They found that the political ideology of the viewer influences the way they process Colbert’s
ambiguous political messages. Both Republicans and Democrats found Colbert funny, but
liberals reported that he was joking and being satirical while conservatives were more likely to
say Colbert disliked liberals and took his jokes at face-value.
Lee, Carol E.. “Obama to Name Ron Klain as Ebola Czar.” The Wall Street Journal 2014,
October 17.
Lynch, Daniel. “The Stewart-Colbert Factor.” Harvard Political Review (2013).
Ma, Ringo. “Media, Crisis, and Sars: An Introduction.” Asian Journal of Communication 15, no.
3 (2005): 241-246.
Ma’s article looks at the key role media reporting plays in the perception, management
and even creation of crisis. Ma looks at crises from 1970 in Quebec as well as others from the
past few decades and the importance of working with mass media in situations of crises because
they are the gatekeepers of information. With the Internet and mobile phones, this relationship is
even more important.

McClam, Erin. “’We’re all in Trouble’ If Ebola Outbreak in Africa Goes Unchecked.” NBC
News 2014, October 29.
Merritt, D.. Public Journalism and Public Life: Why Telling the News Is not Enough. Mahway,
NJ 1998.
Merritt’s book provides an in-depth examination of the growing cynicism by increasingly
disaffected citizens and their distrust of traditional journalists. Merritt discusses the challenges
that journalists face including their obligations to effective public life, that they should revitalize
public life, and how they can develop their profession to deal with cyberspace.
Mohney, Gillian. “Experimental Treatments That Could Help Stop Ebola.” ABC News 2014,
October 17.
Moyer-Guse, E., Mahood, C., and Brookes, S.. “Entertainment-education in the context of
humor: Effects on safer sex intentions and risk perceptions.” Health Communication 26, no. 8
(2011): 765-774.
Moyer-Guse et. al provide a study of the effect of pregnancy-related humor on viewers’
counterarguing, perceived severity and intentions to engage in unprotected sexual behavior. They
find that humor can reduce counterarguing, but trivialized the consequences of sexual behavior,
and viewers reported greater intentions to have unprotected sex than with the serious tone.
Basically, this source is a good example for why humor may trivialize serious matters.
Nather, David. “GOP 2016ers on Ebola: Panic.” Politico 2014, October 3.
Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project Staff. “Journalism, Satire or Just Laughs? The Daily
Show with Jon Stewart, Examined.” Pew Research Center (2008).
Polk J., Young DG, and Holbert RL. “Humor complexity and politic influence: An elaboration
likelihood approach to the effects of humor type in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.” Atlantic
Journal of Communication 17 (2009): 202-219.
Polk and Holbert’s study looks at the effects of exposure to different types of humor on
argument scrutiny in the context of televised messages. The find that irony reduced argument
scrutiny on the premises of the messages relative to sarcasm, but no main effect was found for
type of humor on attitude shift. Their study did find implications for persuasion and public
opinion however, since there was a conditional effect of political efficacy.
Robinson, Nick W.. “Measuring the Effects of Comedy News Programming: An Agenda Setting
Experiment.” Texas Tech University (2014).
Robinson finds that although participants perceived soft news as less credible than hard
news, both sources had similar agenda setting effects. Basically, the participants learned from the
soft news sources (like satirical news outlets) despite the fact they recognized they weren’t as
credible as hard news sources.
42

Rogers, Alex. “Liberal Group Blames Republicans for Ebola in New Ad.” Time 2014, October
13.
Shih, Tsung-Jen, Rosalyna Wijaya, and Dominique Brossard. "Media Coverage of Public Health
Epidemics: Linking Framing and Issue Attention Cycle Toward an Integrated Theory of Print
News Coverage of Epidemics." Mass Communication & Society 11 (2008): 141-60.
43
Shih et. al provide a thorough examination of media framing during public health
epidemics, looking at mad cow disease, West Nile virus, and avian flu. They outline the most
common frames used, action and consequence, as well as the different attention cycle patterns
for each disease. This article is extremely useful for understanding how traditional news outlets
cover public health epidemics with regards to many different aspects of coverage.
Stewart, Daxton R.. “’The Daily Show Effect’ Revisited: How satire contributes to political
participation and trust in young audiences.” Entertainment Studies Interest Group, AEJMC
annual conference (2007).
Stewart’s article examines the effect that Comedy Central satirical journalism programs
have on political participation and viewers’ trust in politicians in general. Stewart finds that
viewership of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report correlated to increased levels of political
participation but decreased levels of political trust. This didn’t differ from the consumption of
hard news except that people who watched hard news were more likely to trust politicians than
those who watched soft news.
Thompson, Dennis. “Americans Increasingly Anxious About Ebola: Poll.” HealthDay 2014,
October 10.
Tian, Y., & Stewart, C. M. “Framing the SARS crisis: A computer-assisted text analysis of CNN
and BBC online news reports of SARS.” Asian Journal of Communication, 15, no.3 (2005):
289–301
Tian and Stewart compare how CNN and BBC framed the SARS crisis. They find that
while CNN and BBC framed the crisis in different ways, they were much more similar than they
were different. This was a good example for what to look for when traditional media frames a
crisis, in terms of frequent concepts.
Walton, Alice G.. “The Problem With Ebola In The Media.” Forbes. 2014, October 11.
Weaver, David H.. “Thoughts on Agenda Setting, Framing, And Priming.” Journal of
Communication 57, no. 1 (2007): 142-147.
Weaver provides an in-depth look at the similarities and differences between “second-level”
agenda setting and framing and between priming and agenda setting. This is a good article
for describing the cognitive processes around framing.

Wilkins, Lee. “Plagues, Pestilence and Pathogens: The Ethical Implications of News Reporting
of a World Health Crisis.” Asian Journal of Communication 15, no. 3 (2005): 247-254.
Wilkins essay looks at the ethics issued raised by media coverage of the SARS outbreak
with regard to other pandemics. Wilkins suggests that journalists go from being normal reporters
to looking at the best way to save lives and minimize panic and harm. Once the crisis ends
journalists become watchdogs again. This is a good article for looking at how the media responds
to a crisis, or at least how they should respond.
Wolford, Ben. “Ebola Is Terrorizing Americans, But There’s Little To Fear; Poll Shows 27%
Consider Outbreak A ‘Major Threat’.” Medical Daily 2014, October 12.
44

Final Paper_Megan Lax

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Final Paper_Megan Lax

Similar to Final Paper_Megan Lax (20)

Final Paper_Megan Lax