Volume 18, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



What makes so successful as social and political satire? Rhetorical theorists and critics have identified several mechanisms for satisfying the show’s satiric and parodic aim, which include , , and (Waisanen, 2009). We present a unified account of meaning construction that encompasses these three mechanisms within the framework of blended fictive interaction (Pascual, 20022008a, b). Satire results from emergent effects of different conceptual configurations that have to be in place to integrate a pastiche of speech whose provenance originates in different and diverse contexts and genres. The integration of contradictory, conceptually disjointed pieces of discourse under the governing structure of the conversation frame accounts for the show’s most conspicuous satirical moments. These imagined interactions highlight facets of the real world for critical commentary. The thick description of an influential segment deepens our understanding of contemporary political satire.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Amarasingam, A.
    (Ed.) (2011) The Stewart/Colbert effect: Essays on the real impacts of fake news. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Andersen, P.
    (1999) Nonverbal communication: Forms and functions. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Pub Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Armstrong, J. K.
    (2015, August6). How Jon Stewart changed the world. RetrievedMay 20, 2017, fromwww.bbc.com/culture/story/20150806-how-jon-stewart-changed-the-world
  4. Baker, P.
    (2012, October17). For the President, punch, punch, another punch. New York Times. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/us/politics/in-second-debate-obama-strikes-back.html
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bakhtin, M.
    (1981) The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (1986) Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Baum, M. A.
    (2002) Sex, lies, and war: How soft news brings foreign policy to the inattentive public. The American Political Science Review, 96(1), 91–109. 10.1017/S0003055402004252
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402004252 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2003) Soft news and political knowledge: Evidence of absence or absence of evidence?Political Communication, 20, 173–190. 10.1080/10584600390211181
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600390211181 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2005) Talking the vote: Why presidential candidates hit the talk show circuit. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 213–234. 10.1111/j.0092‑5853.2005.t01‑1‑00119.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.t01-1-00119.x [Google Scholar]
  10. Baum, M. A., & Jamison, A. S.
    (2006) The Oprah effect: How soft news helps inattentive citizens vote consistently. The Journal of Politics, 68(4), 946–959. 10.1111/j.1468‑2508.2006.00482.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00482.x [Google Scholar]
  11. Baumgartner, J., & Morris, J. S.
    (2006) The Daily Show effect candidate evaluations, efficacy, and American youth. American Politics Research, 34(3), 341–367. 10.1177/1532673X05280074
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X05280074 [Google Scholar]
  12. Baym, G.
    (2005) The Daily Show: Discursive integration and the reinvention of political journalism. Political Communication, 22(3), 259–276. 10.1080/10584600591006492
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600591006492 [Google Scholar]
  13. Becker, A. B., Xenos, M. A., & Waisanen, D. J.
    (2010) Sizing up The Daily Show: Audience perceptions of political comedy programming. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 18(3), 144–157. 10.1080/15456871003742112
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15456871003742112 [Google Scholar]
  14. Blake, A.
    (2012, October4). What Google can tell us about the first debate – in 4 charts. The Washington Post. Retrieved fromwww.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2012/10/04/what-google-tells-us-about-the-first-debate-in-four-graphics/
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Brandt, L.
    (2008) A Semiotic approach to fictive interaction as a representational strategy in communicative meaning construction. InT. Oakley & A. Hougaard (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (pp.109–148). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.170.05bra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.170.05bra [Google Scholar]
  16. Brandt, L., & Pascual, E.
    (2016) “Say hello to this ad”. The persuasive rhetoric of fictive interaction in marketing. InE. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.), The conversation frame. Forms and functions of fictive interaction (pp.303–322). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/hcp.55.15bra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.15bra [Google Scholar]
  17. Brewer, P. R., & Marquardt, E.
    (2007) Mock news and democracy: Analyzing The Daily Show. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 15(4), 249–267. 10.1080/15456870701465315
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870701465315 [Google Scholar]
  18. Brône, G., Feyaerts, K., & Veale, T.
    (2006) Introduction: Cognitive linguistic approaches to humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 19(3), 203–228. 10.1515/HUMOR.2006.012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2006.012 [Google Scholar]
  19. Cao, X.
    (2010) Hearing it from Jon Stewart: The impact of The Daily Show on public attentiveness to politics. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22(1), 26–46. 10.1093/ijpor/edp043
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edp043 [Google Scholar]
  20. CBS Interactive
    CBS Interactive (2012, October3). CBS news instant poll: Romney wins first presidential debate. CBS News. CBS. Retrieved fromwww.cbsnews.com/videos/cbs-news-instant-poll-romney-wins-first-presidential-debate/
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Cienki, A., & Giansante, G.
    (2014) Conversational framing in televised political discourse: A comparison from the 2008 elections in the United States and Italy. Journal of Language and Politics, 13(2), 255–288. 10.1075/jlp.13.2.04cie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.13.2.04cie [Google Scholar]
  22. CNN Politics
    CNN Politics (2012, October3). CNN Poll: Most watchers say Romney debate winner. Retrieved frompoliticalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/03/cnn-poll-romney-wins-debate-by-big-margin/
  23. Coulson, S.
    (1996) The Menendez brothers’ virus: Analogical mapping in blended spaces. InA. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp.67–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2001) What’s so funny?: Conceptual integration in humorous examples. Retrieved fromwww.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~coulson/funstuff/funny.html
  25. Coulson, S., & Pascual, E.
    (2006) For the sake of argument: Mourning the unborn and reviving the dead through conceptual blending. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 153–181. 10.1075/arcl.4.07cou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.4.07cou [Google Scholar]
  26. Coulson, S., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M.
    (2006) Looking back: Joke comprehension and the space structuring model. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 19(3), 229–250. 10.1515/HUMOR.2006.013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMOR.2006.013 [Google Scholar]
  27. CPD
    CPD (2012) 2012 Debates. RetrievedMay 28, 2018, fromwww.debates.org/index.php?page=2012-debates
  28. D’Addario, D.
    (2015) Jon Stewart helped launch the careers of these Daily Show correspondents. Time Magazine. Retrieved fromtime.com/3704300/jon-stewart-daily-show-retiring-correspondents/
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Davis, C. J., Bowers, J. S., & Memon, A.
    (2011) Social influence in televised election debates: A potential distortion of democracy. PLoS One, 6(3), e18154. 10.1371/journal.pone.0018154
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018154 [Google Scholar]
  30. Džanić, N., & Berberoviü, S.
    (2010) On politicians in big women’s sunglasses driving buses with their feet in mouths: Late-night political humour and conceptual integration theory. Jezikoslovlje, 11(2), 197–214.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Fauconnier, G.
    ([1985] 1994) Mental Spaces: aspects of meaning construction in natural languages. (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139174220
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220 [Google Scholar]
  33. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
    (1994) Conceptual projection and middle spaces (Technical Report No. 9401). UCSD Cognitive Science.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. 10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Feldman, L.
    (2013) Learning about politics from The Daily Show: The role of viewer orientation and processing motivations. Mass Communication and Society, 16(4), 586–607. 10.1080/15205436.2012.735742
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2012.735742 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2017) Assumptions about science in satirical news and late-night comedy. InK. H. Jamieson, D. Kahan & D. A. Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication (pp.321–331). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1982) Frame Semantics. InThe Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm: International conference on linguistics: Selected papers. Seoul Korea: Hanshin Pub. Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Finkelstein, S.
    (2015, July30). Jon Stewart, superboss. Harvard Business Reveiw. Retrieved fromhttps://hbr.org/2015/07/jon-stewart-superboss
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (2016) Superbosses: How exceptional leaders master the flow of talent. New York: Portfolio/Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Fonseca, P.
    (2016) Fictive interaction blended networks in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: Conceptualizing political humor discourse not only for entertainment purposes. (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). University of Salamanca, Spain.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Goffman, E.
    (1963) Behaviour in public places: Notes on the social organisation of gatherings. New York: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. (1981) Footing. InForms of talk (pp.124–159). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Goodnow, T.
    (2011) The Daily Show and rhetoric. Lanham: Lexington Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Gray, J., Jones, J. P., & Thompson, E.
    (2009) The state of satire, the satire of state. InJ. Gray, J. P. Jones, & E. Thompson (Eds.), Satire TV politics and comedy in the post-network era. New York & London: New York University.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Jefferson, G.
    (1984) Transcription notation. InJ. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social interaction (pp.ix–xvi). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Jones, J.
    (2007) ‘Fake’ news versus ‘real’ news as sources of political information: The Daily Show and postmodern political reality. InK. Riegert (Ed.), Politicotainment: Television’s take on the real (pp.129–149). New York: Peter Lang AG.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (2010) Entertaining politics satiric television and political engagement (2nd ed.). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Knappenberger, B.
    (2014, June3). Bloomberg news. Jon Stewart’s story: How the fake newsman won over America. Bloomberg. Retrieved fromhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTutwy3wNGc
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kraus, S.
    (2000) Televised presidential debates and public policy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  52. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Langacker, R. W.
    (2001) Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 143–188. 10.1515/cogl.12.2.143
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143 [Google Scholar]
  54. Lichter, S. R.
    (Ed.) (2008) The comedy campaign: The role of late-night TV shows in campaign ’08. Media Monitor, XXII(3), 1–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Liddell, S.
    (1995) Real, surrogate and token space: Grammatical consequences in ASL. InK. Emmorey & J. Reilly (Eds.), Language, gesture and space (pp.19–41). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. (2003) Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American sign language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615054
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615054 [Google Scholar]
  57. Marín-Arrese, J.
    (2003) Humour as ideological struggle: The view from Cognitive Linguistics. Presented at theCognitive Linguistics Approaches to Humour, University of La Rioja, Spain. Retrieved fromwwwling.arts.kuleuven.ac.be/iclc../papers/juanamarinarrese.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  58. (2008) Cognition and culture in political cartoons. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(1), 1–18. 10.1515/IP.2008.001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2008.001 [Google Scholar]
  59. Oakley, T.
    (2009) From attention to meaning: Explorations in semiotics, lingsuistics, and rhetoric. Bern: Peter Lang Verlag. 10.3726/978‑3‑0351‑0782‑1
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0782-1 [Google Scholar]
  60. Oakley, T., & Pascual, E.
    (2017) Conceptual blending theory. InB. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp.423–448). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.027
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.027 [Google Scholar]
  61. Parrill, F.
    (2012) Interactions between discourse status and viewpoint in co-speech gesture. InB. Dancygier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective (pp.97–112). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139084727.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084727.008 [Google Scholar]
  62. Pascual, E.
    (2002) Imaginary trialogues: Conceptual blending and fictive interaction in criminal courts. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. (2006) Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 245–267. 10.1515/COG.2006.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.006 [Google Scholar]
  64. (2008a) Fictive interaction blends in everyday life and courtroom settings. InT. Oakley & A. Hougaard (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (p.262). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.170.04pas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.170.04pas [Google Scholar]
  65. (2008b) Text for context, trial for trialogue: A fieldwork study of a fictive interaction blend. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 50–82. 10.1075/arcl.6.04pas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.6.04pas [Google Scholar]
  66. (2014) Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.47
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.47 [Google Scholar]
  67. Popa, D. E.
    (2011) Political satire dies last: A study on democracy, opinion formation, and political satire. InV. Tsakona & D. E. Popa (Eds.), Studies in political humourvol.46 (pp.137–166). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.46.10pop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.46.10pop [Google Scholar]
  68. Prior, M.
    (2003) Any good news in soft news? The impact of soft news preference on political knowledge. Political Communication, 20, 149–171. 10.1080/10584600390211172
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600390211172 [Google Scholar]
  69. Sanders, T., Sanders, J., & Sweetser, E.
    (2009) Causality, cognition and communication: A mental space analysis of subjectivity in causal connectives. InT. Sanders & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp.19–60). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110224429.19
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224429.19 [Google Scholar]
  70. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Fictive motion in language and “ception.” InToward a cognitive semantics volume I: Concept structuring systems (pp.99–175). Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/6847.003.0005
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6847.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  71. Thussu, D. K.
    (2007) New as entertainment: The rise of global infotainment. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Turner, M.
    (2010) Ten lectures on mind and language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Waisanen, D. J.
    (2009) A citizen’s guides to democracy inaction: Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s comic rhetorical criticism. Southern Communication Journal, 74(2), 119–140. 10.1080/10417940802428212
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10417940802428212 [Google Scholar]
  74. Warner, J.
    (2007) Political culture jamming: The dissident humor of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Popular Communications, 5(1), 17–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Xenos, M. A., & Becker, A. B.
    (2009) Moments of zen: Effects of The Daily Show on information seeking and political learning. Political Communication, 26(3), 317–332. 10.1080/10584600903053569
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600903053569 [Google Scholar]
  76. Xiang, M.
    (2016) Real, imaginary or fictive? Philosophical dialogues in an early Daoist text and its pictorial version. InE. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction (pp.63–86). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.55.04xia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.04xia [Google Scholar]
  77. Young, D. G.
    (2008) The Daily Show as the new journalism. InJ. C. Baumgartner & J. S. Morris (Eds.), Laughing matters: Humor and American politics in the media age (pp.242–259). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. (2013) Laughter, learning, or enlightenment? Viewing and avoidance motivations behind The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(2), 153–169. 10.1080/08838151.2013.787080
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2013.787080 [Google Scholar]
  79. Zinoman, J.
    (2014, April16). True king of late night? He might raise eyebrows image. New York Times. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/arts/television/jon-stewarts-big-role-in-developing-stars.html
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error