In today's America, citizens and constituents are turning to The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Real Time with Bill Maher, and Buzzfeed News for a version of politics that is comedic, exciting, and entertaining rather than the traditional news coverage, typically characterized by reports, videos, and photos of current events, done by Fox News or CNN. This new brand of the news media often referred to as political comedy, took shape in the form of late-night comedians making fun of politicians. It has now evolved to be more of a realistic, truthful news segment examining the current political climate with satire, jokes, and often valid information.

In 2015, political editorial writer Noel Diem wrote: "...[The Daily Show with Jon Stewart] averages 2.3 million viewers per episode, putting him far ahead of other news outlets in not only viewers, but also in that 25-54 [age] range. In fact, The Daily Show is consistently ranked the top late-night news show among the key demographic" (Diem). She goes on to discuss the differences where age demographics are tuning in, citing that the average viewers of more traditionalized news sources are well into their sixties (Diem). These statistics show that Americans are getting their political information from a variety of accessible sources, but how many of them are reliable? It seems nearly impossible to determine the legitimacy of often opinionated and politically motivated television shows, political commentators, and journalists. If the sources Americans are gaining information from are biased, partisan, and sometimes downright falsely based, how can Americans politically participate in a knowledgeable, informed manner?

In evaluating a wide range of different media platforms, from comedic, late-night political talk shows to traditional news outlets and what kind of impact each has on political participation, difficult, complex questions must be asked. Do partisan news outlets help or harm the constituent? Are Americans vulnerable to manipulation through the media? How can bias be eliminated from American politics, if it should be eliminated at all? All of these questions make up the fears of intelligent voters, political activists, and politicians alike. This evaluation is backed by the work, studies, and research performed by other concerned intellectuals, such as the writers at the Pew Research Center who collected the percentages of Americans who use various news outlets and evaluated how constituents respond to various media resources. Analysis of various exit polls, newspaper and editorial studies, and television evaluations all contribute to the notion that the ebb and flow of information from politicians to a variety of news outlets to Americans creates a complicated network of political slant and opinion, thus impacting political identities, voter turnout, and political conversations, often in a negative way.

Before we can evaluate news sources individually, we must evaluate media bias as a whole. It is safe to say that at least educated Americans are aware of media bias and work to somewhat avoid it as often as possible. The Pew Research Center has concluded that "Nearly two-thirds (64%) of the public say they prefer getting political news from sources that don't have a particular point of view, compared with 26% who would rather get news from sources that share their political perspective" (Pew Research). But how can voters know for sure if the information they are receiving is unbiased and non-partisan? The statistics show that many constituents "...who watch television news on one platform are likely to watch it on another…" implying that Americans get their news from many different sources with many different perspectives (Jurkowitz, Mitchell). If this is true, we can assume that if viewers are receiving biased information, they are at least receiving many different sides.

In Jonathan Morris' study and analysis of perceived media bias and political attitudes, he explored the polarization of the news media and the impact that it can have on Americans. He proposed that: "The television news audience is divided along political lines. This division could contribute toward further political polarization among the U.S. mass public as the content of television news coverage of politics becomes less and less homogenized", which implies that the news coverage of politics is becoming more divided, partisan, and therefore less honest (Morris). Morris examines the history of attacks on the media by political candidates, including Bob Dole in 1996 and George H.W Bush during his reelection, who claim that the media is biased in favor of the Democratic party and is to blame for failed campaigns. Morris questioned in his study whether or not this attack on the media is just, and he argued that: "the effects of perceived political bias in the media are not benign" (Morris). These attacks on the media influence how news sources are viewed by the public, forcing constituents into a sea of shattered political news coverage in which they are forced to dig through to find the truth.

In a comprehensive research study performed and authored by James N. Druckman and Michael Parkin, they evaluated the impact opinion-based editorials can have on voters. Their study evaluates editorial slant, which they defined as "the quantity and tone of a newspaper's candidate coverage as influenced by editorial position", and implicit biases within these newspapers in the framework, language, diction, and sentence structure (Druckman and Parkin). Instead of just evaluating bias, however, they take their research a step further to determine how news bias can impact voters. They studied two newspaper companies, The Star Tribune and The Pioneer Press, in the St. Paul, Minnesota area and evaluated voters in that district as well. Their assessment included how one newspaper company covered both candidates, Mark Dayton and Rod Grams, and how the two competing newspaper companies differed in their coverage of one candidate. The Star Tribune had 33% more positive mentions of Dayton than Grams, while The Pioneer Press had 8% more negative mentions of Grams than Dayton, and the evidence shows that The Pioneer Press had "significantly less neutral" coverage of Grams than The Star Tribune (Druckman and Parkin).

Then, after the election in question, they performed an exit poll to learn how voters received their political information, which newspaper they read more often, and which candidate they ended up voting for. Their exit poll was proven accurate in the overall voting tally by being nearly identical to the actual outcome of the race. In their exit poll, their goal was: "To measure exposure and attention to each newspaper" (Druckman and Parkin). They asked voters specifically: "how many days over the last two months, on average, they read the front-page and/or metro sections of the paper" (Druckman and Parkin). The answers supported their hypothesis. The constituents who read The Star Tribune had "significantly higher evaluations of Dayton" (Druckman and Parkin, 16). They go on to explain the results of the study, showing that voters exposed to slanted editorials were more likely to vote in accordance with that article and the presented opinions. This shows that presenting opinionated, partisan information can and does impact how constituents vote and that "media actors make choices and how these choices affect voters has profound implications for the meaning of public opinion, and ultimately, democratic governance" (Druckman and Parkin). Druckman and Parkin conclude their study with a belief in what they call relative slant - or how biased something is according to an individual with inherent biases - and how relative slant can and does influence voters to vote in a particular direction.

In order to determine which news sources are having the most extensive impact on voters, where voters are getting their news must be the second question. If constituents believe that certain news outlets are biased, where are they turning for their news? Morris cites the research of Tsfati and Capella (2003) in their argument "that lower levels of trust in mainstream media drive a greater tendency to use newer sources of news, such as the Internet and talk radio" (Morris). He also describes the sheer number of different platforms Americans have to get their political information from, whether it be cable news, podcasts, or social networking, and how the chasms within the media affect voter cynicism. For example, Morris found that the vast majority of Fox News viewers believe that other news networks are skewed to the left, and that some claim that the very creation of Fox News was to combat bias and provide a "fair and balanced" option for those "fed up with the liberal media" (Morris). Morris continues to claim that coverage of one incident can vary greatly between news sources in a "heterogeneous news environment" within a "fragmented news era" (Morris).

If this is true, how can Americans know that the information they are receiving is accurate? The sad truth is, as Morris evaluates, viewers are more likely to accept biases that fit with their own preconceived notions and reject biases that do not, rather than objectively evaluate the sources. Morris cites the Pew Research Center's study conducted in 2004, and it shows that "those individuals with perceptions of bias and unfairness in the media overall are more likely to watch Fox News" which was first created to combat liberally biased media (Morris, 715). The consequences of a fragmented media, such as a blindness to partisan media reports when in favor of one's own political leanings, lead to a cycle of bias that continues from news source to voter and back again.

To answer the question of where Americans are receiving their news, many people are now turning to social media and other forms of entertainment, such as talk shows. According to the Pew Research Center in an article following trends in news consumption from 1991 to 2012, "Just 23% [of Americans] say they read a print newspaper yesterday, down only slightly since 2010 (26%), but off by about half since 2000 (47%)" (Pew Research). If the amount of Americans reading newspapers has dropped significantly, there must be another source of news and information that shows to have greatly increased; the article states that "...the percentage of all Americans who regularly get news from social network sites has roughly tripled – from 7% to 20% – since 2010. And the proportion of social networkers who regularly get news there has more than doubled, from 16% to 36%)" (Pew Research). Therefore, many Americans switched from reading newspapers to browsing social media sites, on which news corporations, political activists and organizations, and political comedians can all post and share their own content for viewers to digest. And even more recently, in 2014, a writer for the Huffington Post named Last Week with Jon Oliver as "the year's most surprising contribution to television" describing the politically comedic talk show as "a show that bucked conventional formats, left us buzzing and paved the way for a burgeoning dynasty" (Jacobs). This only reinforces the notion that political comedy is gaining popularity among modern voters, thus officially merging the information and entertainment industries.

This leads to the obvious next question: as they gain popularity, are political comedians presenting the most biased perspective? In Noel Diem's article comparing traditional news sites to political comedy, she states: "In 2012, a study even found that people who watch The Daily Show are more informed than people who watch Fox News. This could be because the face of The Daily Show isn't the only person who reports on the show–there is a bevy of people who do humorous investigations" (Diem). Often, political comedians can be the most honest and blatant. Shows like the Daily Show put a fun twist on politics, pointing out the flaws in our government while also informing the people about key issues, whether they are biased or not.

Some scholars may argue that voters will always find bias within any form of news media, and attempting to limit or weed out partisan media would be a fruitless venture. However, studies have shown that people tend to vote for the candidates that their preferred news outlets discussed positively. There is a definite correlation between the news networks people watch, the biases of each news network, and the person's political opinion, as proven by the study cited earlier, performed by Druckman and Parkin. However, bias is inescapable in every form of communication. As individuals, people are shaped by their experiences and exposure to the world around them, and this shapes their personal paradigm. A writer from All Sides, an online news site that uses viewer ratings to categorize news outlets by their biases, claims: "Everyone is biased. It's impossible to avoid. Journalists approach every story with unique life experiences that consciously and subconsciously influence the work they do, whether they identify as Left, Right, or anything in between. What's more, the 24-hour news cycle operates on a business model that relies on inflaming the political divide, one that has already reached record levels of hyper-partisanship" (Billy Binion, John Gable). Regardless of the form of political information people receive, biases exist, and there is no way to remove all bias from the minds of voters or from news outlets.

The best way to combat the lack of interest in politics and the rise of voter cynicism is with education and the ability to evaluate news and political information individually. FAIR, an online blog site dedicated to challenging media bias, urges news audiences to be "...aware of the political perspective of the sources used in a story" (FAIR). Being able to pinpoint "loaded terminology", which includes words or phrases that are meant to invoke fear or high emotions can also help voters to be wary of possible bias. In challenging media bias, it is also important to notice the amount of diversity on a news station; are the journalists the same race and gender? Are the guest speakers consistently of similar demographics? FAIR says that "In order to fairly represent different communities, news outlets should have members of those communities in decision-making positions."

Ultimately, media bias is an issue without a straightforward solution. Finding news sources that are somewhat honest and open about political practices and concepts can be difficult. It is safe to say that all of the news organizations want to do what is good for business, and current voters have shown that tailoring to the biases of the audience increases audience satisfaction. Just as Jonathan Morris said in his article: "As viewers pursue news sources that are more tailored to their own political beliefs, the probability of exposure to divergent points of view decreases. Thus, Americans are getting different versions of the same issues and events, which may hinder the chances of political moderation and compromise among the mass public" (Morris). This leaves multitudes of Americans with skewed perspectives on events, most of which have been hand-fed to them, and when their skewed perspective is challenged, people get angry. Essentially, it is up to the American people to be educated, politically active, open-minded voters. Gathering information from a variety of sources and evaluating each piece of information with strict scrutiny is the best way to move democracy forward and to encourage free thought.

Works Cited

Berg, Madeline. "Politics After Dark: Where Cable News Viewers Go For Late-Night TV." Forbes, Forbes Media, 25 Oct. 2017, www.forbes.com/sites/maddieberg/2017/10/24/politics-after-dark-where-cable-news-viewers-go-for-late-night-tv/#5ae108fc1feb.

Binion, Billy, and John Gable. "Sinclair's 'Fake News' Promos Ask the Impossible." AllSides, Washington Examiner, 9 Apr. 2018, www.allsides.com/news/2018-04-11-1018/sinclairs-fake-news-promos-ask-impossible.

Clark, Mary Pat. "In Changing News Landscape, Even Television Is Vulnerable." Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Pew Research Center, 22 May 2014, www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/in-changing-news-landscape-even-television-is-vulnerable/.

Diem, Noel. "Comedy or Cable: Where Do Americans Get Their News?" Law Street Media, Law Street Media, 18 Apr. 2017, https://lawstreetmedia.com/issues/entertainment-and-culture/comedy-cable-americans-get-news/.

Druckman, James N., and Michael Parkin. "The Impact of Media Bias: How Editorial Slant Affects Voters." The Journal of Politics, vol. 67, no. 4, 5 Jan. 2005, pp. 1030–1049., doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00349.x.

Entman, Robert M. "Media Framing Biases and Political Power: Explaining Slant in News of Campaign 2008." Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism, vol. 11, no. 4, 17 Aug. 2010, pp. 389–408., doi:10.1177/1464884910367587.

Morris, Jonathan S. "Slanted Objectivity? Perceived Media Bias, Cable News Exposure, and Political Attitudes." Social Science Quarterly, vol. 88, no. 3, 5 July 2007, pp. 707–728., doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00479.x.

Olmstead, Kenneth, et al. "How Americans Get TV News at Home." Pew Research Center's Journalism Project, Pew Research Center, 26 May 2017, www.journalism.org/2013/10/11/how-americans-get-tv-news-at-home/.

Jacobs, Matthew. "Why 'Last Week Tonight With John Oliver' Was 2014's Best Show." The Huffington Post, HuffPost, 8 Dec. 2014, www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/08/last-week-tonight-with-john-oliver-best-show-2014_n_6284074.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063/.