THESag, lflllllllllflllflllllllljllfllfll“W ' LIBRARY Adkifiganfguun ‘Lhflwcnfity This is to certify that the thesis entitled A Study of Reader Attitudes Toward Satirical Newspaper Columns presented by William Aidan Lancaster has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ILA. degree in Journalism Date 5/9/79 0-7639 OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to book drop to remove this checkout from your record. © 1979 WILLIAM AIDAN LANCASTER AILRIGTI'S RESERVED STUDY OF READER ATTITUDES TOWARD SATIRICAL NEWSPAPER COLUMNS BY William Aidan Lancaster A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS School of Journalism 1979 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF READER ATTITUDES TOWARD SATIRICAL NEWSPAPER COLUMNS BY William Aidan Lancaster The objective of this study was to examine reader attitudes toward satire in order to obtain a compilation of those elements which readers deem essential to well written satire. Such elements were acquired by factor analyzing reader responses to well written and poorly written satirical neWSpaper columns. Analysis of data suggested that readers evaluate satire along the dimen- sions of Amusement, Reality, Provocation and Mockery. It is possible that varying degrees of these four fac- tors could be the components of an effective satirical composition. This is dedicated to my parents, Marian and Bill Lancaster, to my brother Brian and to Paul Todisco, four people who share and encourage the author's appreciation of humor. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Unfortunately, the limits of space make it impos- sible to properly recognize all of the people in Massachu- setts and Michigan who have provided me with the profes- sional and academic training which made this study possible. My various reporting jobs in Massachusetts and my studies at Michigan State University have proved in- valuable. Among those who assisted me in innumerable ways, I would like to single out for special thanks Richard Hurst, a statistician at the MSU Computer Center and Dr. Maurice R. Cullen Jr., an historian of the MSU School of Journalism. I am particularly indebted to Dr. Larry Lan- drum for his perspectives on popular literature and to Dr. Judee Burgoon for her advice on the construction of atti- tude measuring instruments. Finally, my thanks to Dr. George A. Rough 3rd for his guidance in the writing of this work. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . II JUSTIFICATION . . . . . . . . III REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . IV METHOD AND PROCEDURES . . . . V FINDINGS OF STUDY . . . . . . VI DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . APPENDICES A DICTIONARY TREATISE TEST . . B SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page 27 32 45 50 51 53 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Overall Rating of Panel and Student Article Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Six Satiric Articles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3. Analysis of Variance . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4. Means of 27 Variables and Standard Deviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 5. Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix After Rotation with Kaiser Normalization . . . . . . . . . . 36 6. Associated Relevant Items of Four Factors . . 37 7. Rotated Factor Loadings for Four-Factor SOlutionS O O O O O O I O O O O O O I O O 0 O 3 8 8. Items with Highest Loadings on the Four Retained Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 9. Factor Loadings for Final Four-Factor Solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 10. Wilks Lamda Statistic . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 ll. Wilks Lamda and Univariate F-Ratio . . . . . 42 12. Rank Ordering of Final Four Factors . . . . . 42 13. Classification of Cases . . . . . . . . . . . 43 14. Multiple Regression Analysis . . . . . . . . 44 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION From Ben Franklin's "Silence Dogood" to the contemp- orary columns of Art Buchwald, journalists have long used satire to ridicule vice and folly and to hold up the short- commings of man to public contempt. A review of relevant literature shows that satirical essays were among the first printed works of the American colonists and that over the decades, satire was develOped and refined as a journalistic device. During the Revolutionary period, for example, colon- ists read satires penned by Benjamin Franklin, John With- erspoon, Francis Hepkinson, William Livingston and John Trumbull. The tense Federalist era was satirized by William Cobbett, Joseph Dennie, Philip Freneau and John Fenno. Similarly, major figures and events of the Civil War and post—Civil War periods were poked and jabbed at by Artemus Ward, David Ross Locke, Charles H. Smith, and Ambrose Bierce. The Twentieth Century press provided America with satire by Frank McKinney, Finley Peter Dunne and Franklin P. Adams. Commenting on the historical impact of the satirists, 2 Henry Ladd Smith said that in their day the satirists were often more effective in their persuasion than were Greeley, Raymond, Godkin, Watterson, or Grady.1 "Long before there were syndicated editorials, the humorous critics of our customs had national followings," Smith said.2 Besides attracting large newspaper audiences, the satirists drew the attention of scholars who attempted to study the lives and works of these journalists. Some of the better known efforts include: Walter Blair, Horse Sense in American Humor,3 Jeannette Tandy, Cracker- box Philosophers in America,4 Kenneth Lynn, The Comic Tradition in America,s James Aswell, Native American Humor,6 Bruce Granger, Political Satire in the American Revolution,7 and H. R. Haweis, American Humorists.8 lHenry Ladd Smith, "The Needlers: Our Journalistic Satirists," Journalism Quarterly 39 (Summer l962):399-316. 25mith, "The Needlers," p. 309. 3Walter Blair, Horse Sense in American Humor (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1945). 4Jeannette Tandy, Crackerbox Philosthers in America (New York: Columbia University Press, I925). 5Kenneth Lynn, The Comic Tradition in America (New York: Doubleday and Co.,vl938T: 6James Aswell, Native American Humor (New York: Graden City Publishing Co., I919). 7Bruce Granger, Political Satire in the American Revolution (New York, Cornell Press, ISGOT: 8H. R. Haweis, American Humorists (New York: Funk and wagnalls, 1882). In examining the role of satirical composition in American history, students of satire have theorized about how satirical prose should be written. Some conclude that it should involve some ridiculing of society's contemporary ills. Gilbert Highet, for example, suggests that, "To write good satire, the satirist must describe, decry and denounce the here and now."9 Marie Collins Swabie says that effective satire "excites anger in human misdeeds and cruelties."lo David Worcester suggests that, "Poignant satire is an expression of an author's disapprobation of the political, social or personal actions, conditions or qualities of the time."11 In these scholarly attempts to analyze the elements of effective satirical writing, these authors and the others have relied on their own impressions and evaluations to define the components of satire. Few have asked read- ers how they defined good satire. A study of reader reactions could help explain why critics have disagreed on what makes satire effective. Although no such study has been conducted, Charles R. Gruner used the columns of Art Buchwald to examine the 9Gilbert Highet, The Anatomy of Satire (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, I962), p. 17. 10Marie Collins Swabie, Comic Laughter: A PhiIOSOphi- cal Essay (New Haven: Yale University Press,'l§62l, p. 80. 11David WOrcester, The Art of Satire (Cambridge: Har- vard University Press, 1940), p. IGI. persuasive impact of satire on newspaper readers.12 Gruner found that satire produced no statistically signif- icant opinion changes. He concluded that studies of reader attitudes toward satire are needed "before we will know a small fraction of what we might believe or hOpe about the phenomena."13 The purpose of this study is to examine reader atti- tudes toward satire in an attempt to obtain a compilation of those dimensions which readers use in judging satirical composition. Such an analysis might provide journalists with evidence of what readers perceive to be good satire and perhaps provide a base of knowledge upon which the skill of satirical writing can be built. 12Charles H. Gruner, "Ad Hominen Satire as a Per- suader: An Experiment," Journalism Quarterly 49 (Spring 1971):128-131. l3Gruner, "Ad Hominen Satire," p. 131. CHAPTER II JUSTIFICATION A review of scholarly journals indicates that the surveying of reader attitudes is becoming an increasingly important practice among newspaper editors. Grotta, Larkin and Carrell examined reader attitudes to see if readers distinguished between advertising and news content in newspapers.1 They report that: "It is interesting that readers perceive no distinction between news and advertising while many newspaper editors clearly distinguish between the two."2 They suggest their re- search "supports an emerging realization that the mass media--and perhaps particularly newspapers--need to con- tinue serious efforts to more clearly define their pro- 3 ducts in terms of the consumer." In a study of how readers perceive and use a small 1Gerald L. Grotta, Ernest F. Larkin and Robert Car- rell, "News vs. Advertising: Does the Audience Perceive the Journalistic Distinction?" Journalism Quarterly 53 (Autumn 1976):448-456. 2 p. 448. 3 p. 456. Grotta, Larkin and Carrell, "News vs. Advertising," Grotta, Larkin and Carrell, "News vs. Advertising,‘ daily newspaper, Grotta, Larkin and De Plois affirmed the assumption that quantity of local news is a valid measure of a small town daily newspaper performance: The function of a small daily newspaper, as perceived by the subscribers, is to report local information.... Metropolitan newspapers offer de- tailed information to those readers who wish to pursue issues beyond television and radio cover- age. But the local newspaper is the source of local information for persons not living in metro- politan areas.4 Percy H. Tannenbaum examined the writing of general science news in newspapers and said that an obstacle fac- ing the communication of science news to the public is that editors may misperceive the interests and/or capabil- ities of their audiences.5 Other studies reflect the interest of examining reader attitudes. Some of these efforts include: Schweit- zer and Goldman. "Does Newspaper Competition Make a Dif- ference to Readers?"6 Baker and Macdonald, "Newspaper Editorial Readership and Length of Editorials."7 4Gerald L. Grotta, Ernest F. Larkin and Barbara De Plois, "How Readers Perceive and Use a Small Daily Newspaper," Journalism Quarterly 52 (Winter l975):715. 5Percy H. Tannenbaum, "Communication of Science Information," Science 140 (May 1973):579-583. 6John C. Schweitzer and Elaine Goldman, "Does Newspaper Competition Make a Difference to Readers?" Journalism Quarterly 52 (Winter 1975:706-710. 7Donna Baker and James MacDonald, "Newspaper Edi- torial Readership and Length of Editorials," Journalism Quarterly 38 (Autumn 196l):473—479. Patterson, Booth and Smith, "Who Reads About Science?"8 McCombs and Mauro, "Predicting Newspaper Readership from Content Characteristics."9 Root and Schrock, "Reader Inter- est Research with Children."10 The employment of survey research companies by metro- politan newspapers also reflects this concern about exam- ining reader attitudes. The hiring of Market Opinion Re- search by the Detroit News is one such example. In the examination of newspaper humor, some studies have analyzed the persuasive effect of satire. One study measured reader responses to the satire of Art Buchwald.ll Another study used a radio audience to see if satirical 12 Four studies used audiences 13 radio drama was persuasive. to examine the effect of humor in persuasive speech and 8Joyce Patterson, Laurel Booth and Russell Smith, "Who Reads About Science?" Journalism Quarterly_46 (Au- tum l969):599-602. 9Maxwell McCombs and John Mauro, "Predicting News- paper Readership from Content Characteristics," Journal- ism Quarterly 54 (Spring l977):3-7, 49. 10Robert Root and Paul M. Schrock, "Reader Interest Research with Children," Journalism Quarterly_41 (Summer l964):443-444. 11Charles R. Gruner, "Editorial Satire as Persuasion: An Experiment," Journalism Quarterly 44 (Fall 1967):727- 730. 12David Berlo and Hidea Kumata, "The Investigator: The Impact of a Satirical Radio Drama," Journalism Quart- erly 33 (Spring 1956):287-298. 13For a synopsis of these studies see: Charles R. Grunner, "Editorial Satire as Persuasion: An Experiment," Journalism Quarterly 44 (Fall l967):727-730. 8 one study employed editorial cartoons to measure the per- suasiveness of satire.14 While these studies show that the inclusion of sa- tire in a message does not significantly change Opinion, they provide little insight concerning how audiences per- ceive and understand satiric stimuli. Gruner, who con- ducted investigations with Buchwald's columns, says that an examination of reader attitudes towards satire "could help define the components and dimensions of persuasive- lS ness in satire." "It is obvious that more research on the impact of satire and other wit-forms is needed," Gruner said.16 Through the use of such attitude measuring devices as the Likert Scale and the semantic differential, the preposed study will attempt to generate a compilation of those dimensions which readers use in judging satirical newspaper columns. Possibly it could increase the jour- nalistic understanding of this art form. 14LeRoy M. Carl, "Editorial Cartoons Fail to Reach Many Readers," Journalism Quarterly 45 (Summer 1968): 533-535. 15 2/15/79. 16 Telephone interview with Dr. Charles Gruner on Gruner, "Satire as Persuasion," p. 730. CHAPTER III REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE A review of historical literature shows that satir- ical essays appeared in the American Colonies as early as 1722. Writing in the New England Courant under the pen name "Silence Dogood," Benjamin Franklin published a series of satires which ran from April 2, 1722, to Octo- ber 8, 1722. The "Dogood" essays philosophized on the evils of drunkeness, the squandering of money, the merits of knowledge and other moral issues. Franklin chose a pen name because he feared the ed- itor of the Courant, his older brother James, would not have printed the essays of a sixteen-year-old boy. This decision by Franklin was recorded in his autobiography: Hearing the Couranteer's Conversations and their Accounts of the Approbation their Papers were re- ceived with, I was excited to try my hand among them. But being still a boy, and suspecting that my Brother would object to printing any Thing of mine in his Paper if he knew it to be mine, I contriv'd to disguise my hand, and writing an an- onymous Paper I\put it in at night under the Door of the Printing House. It was found in the morn- ing and Communicated to his Writing Friends when they call'd in as usual.1 1James A. Sappenfield, A Sweet Instruction (Edwards- ville, Illinois: Southern Illindis Press, I973); p. 31. 10 In these essays, Franklin c0pied the style of Joseph Addison and Richard Steele, creators of London's satirical Spectator. In his autobiography, Franklin wrote: I thought the writing of the Spectator excellent, and wish'd if possible to imitate it. With that View, I took some of the Papers, and making short hints of the Sentiments in each Sentence, laid them by a few days and then without looking at the book, try'd to compleat the papers again, by expressing each hinted Sentiment at length and as fully as it had been expressed before. Then I compar'd my Spectator with the Original, discover'd some of my faults and corrected them.2 Typical of Franklin's satire was his eleventh "Doe good" essay on providing widows with insurance. (Records indicate that in the early 17205, one-fifth of the female population in Boston were widows, yet the government had little desire to provide them with any type of assistance.) Franklin satirized this situation by suggesting that the government provide insurance for any women who was a vir- gin. I suggest whereby every single women, upon full Proof given of her continuing a Virgin for the Space of Eighteen years, (dating her Virginity from the age of Twelve) should be entuled to 500 pounds in ready cash. Among the conditions to be Observed: No WOman, who after claiming and re- ceiving, shall entertain company above the space of one hour at a Time, upon Pain of returning one half the Money into the Office for the First Of- fence; and upon the Second Offence to return the Remainder.3 Russel B. Nye said that Franklin's satires were 2Sappenfield, A Sweet Instruction, p. 177. 3Carl Van Doren, Benjamin Franklin (New York: Viking Press, 1939, p. 22). 11 successful because he wrote in the vernacular and appealed to Boston's working class while simultaneously jabbing at Boston's highbrow intellectuals, especially the members of the Harvard community.4 In one satirical account of Har- "Silence" told of a dream she had in which she mys- teriously found herself at a "Temple of Learning which was reach'd by climbing difficult steps." 5 At the great Gate sat Riches and Poverty and Poverty rejected all those whom Riches did not recommend. Most of the worshipers that regularly attended this Temple sat at the foot of Madam Ignorance. They were Beetle-skulled and each seemed well satisfied with his own portion of Learning, though perhaps he was e'en just as ignorant as ever. Once out of the Temple, some I perceived took to merchandising, others to traveling, and some to nothing; and many of them for want of pat- rimony, lived as poor as church mice, being unable to dig and ashamed to beg, and to live by their wits it was impossible. I reflected on the extreme folly of those parents who, blind to their children's ignorance and insensible of the solidity of their skulls ... would send them to this temple from which they learned little more than how to enter a room genteely which might as well been acquired at a dancing school.6 Although the last "Dogood" essay appeared in the fall of 1722, Franklin continued writing satires throughout the American Revolution. Walter Blair has said that Franklin's o o o o e 7 Revolutionary essays were his satirical masterpieces. 4Russel B. Nye, Autobiography oleenjamin Franklin (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Riverside Press, I958), p. 68. 5Nye, Franklin, p. 22. 6Nye, Franklin, p. 23. 7Walter Blair and Hamlin Hill, America's Humor (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), p. 83. 12 Franklin said that he owed much of the success of his Revolutionary satire to his examinations of Jonathan Swift's writing.8 In "An Essay Upon Quieting the Distur- bances in America," Franklin (like Swift in "A Modest Proposal") scorned England by providing the aristocracy with ludicrous solutions to its foreign policy problems. Franklin wrote in part: I hereby humbly propose that we let General Gage lead five battalions through several towns, accom- panied by a hundred sow-gelders. In every town or village, assemble the males and have them all cas- trated. Thus we will achieve three ends: 1) In the course of fifty years it is probable we shall not have one rebellious subject in North America. 2) Instead of importing castrati from Italy at great cost, managers of opera can use our own more cheaply and keep the money at home. 3) As a service to the Levant trade, we can furnish seraglios and harems with eunuchs and with handsome women for which America is as famous as Circassia ... un- doubtedly, emigration from England, far too popular, will halt.9 Throughout the Revolution Franklin used satire to chastise, correct and chronicle all that he saw. His satire, in addition to attracting a large audience,managed to aid the development of humor as an important tool of the newspaper editor. As Howard Long said: The printers of Franklin's time were a humorless lot and the people who wrote tracts about the issues of the day took themselves too seriously to employ whatever wit they had. Fortunately they were able to read the writings of Franklin ... who never feared to turn a joke upon himself, never hesitated to employ innuendo, or even to resort to slapstick 8Blair and Hill, America's Humor, p. 201. 9Blair and Hill, America's Humor, p. 79. 13 if it served his purpose.10 As Franklin used satire to support Colonial Ameri- can independence, Philip Freneau applied his to sustain the efforts of the Revolution and to carry on its purposes and aims once freedom had been won. Edwin Emery summar- izes the sentiments of many journalism historians: "Fren- eau was the most zealous patriot of the lot."11 Emery adds that Freneau's satirical poems and essays "did as much to fire up the morale of the patriots as did the prose of Thomas Paine."12 So biting were the essays of this man that George Washington once referred to him as "that rascal Freneau." Freneau's first collection of satiric Revolutionary poems were written between June and November of 1775. Most poked fun at the Tories and British officials. One of these works, "The Midnight Consultations," mocked General Gage. Is he to conquer--he subdue our land This buckram hero, with his lady's hand? Freneau went on to describe Gage as a feminine fellow who could not take warfare: Three weeks, cried Gage, Three long years it seems, Since roast beef I have touched, except in dreams. loSappenfield, A Sweet Instruction, p. XIV. 11Edwin Emery, The Press and America (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice HalI,—l972), p. 108. 12 Emery, The Press and America. p. 109. 14 In sleep choice dishes to my view repair Waking I gaze and chomp the empty air.l3 Many historians cite the morale-boosting effect that these works had on America during the Revolution. One historian, referring to two of Freneau's poems, said, "The Prison Ship" whipped apathetic patriots into renewed ef- forts against the enemy. His account of the exploits of John Paul Jones instilled pride into a dejected nation."14 Throughout the Revolution Freneau ridiculed and por- trayed as folly every aspect of the British war effort. One poem, "Fair Science Never Called the Wretch Her Son," even mocked British army doctors. He on his charge the healing work begun With antimonial mixtures by the ton On the refusing he bestowed a kick 15 Or menaced vengeance with his walking stick. Carl Holliday reflects on the effects these poems had on the Tories during the Revolution: After reading Freneau's poems, we may well imagine what furor they made among the Tories of New York, Philadelphia and Boston. They were already sorely aggrieved at the stubborness of these plebian col- onists and the lack of perserverance in the charac- ter of the English regulars; and Freneau's satire was acid poured upon their smarting wounds.16 Even as the Revolution was drawing to a close, Fren- eau maintained a constant volley of satire. One of his l3Carl Holliday, The Wit and Humor of Colonial Days (New York: Ungar Pub. Co., 1960), p. 184. l4Emery, The Press and America, p. 109. 15Holliday, Wit and Humor, p. 180. 16Holliday, Wit and Humor, p. 180. 15 last Revolutionary poems, published in 1782, mocked King George for thinking he could conquer the colonies. When a certain King, whose initial is G Shall force stamps upon paper, and folks to drink tea; When these folks burn his tea and stampt paper, like stubble, You may guess this King is coming to trouble. 0 King, my dear King, you shall be very sore The Stars and the Lily shall run you on shore, And your Lion shall growl, but bite never more!17 In 1791 Freneau's old school chum James Madison of- fered him a subsidy as a State Department translator with the proviso that he launch an anti-Federalist newspaper, Freneau seized upon the opportunity and as editor of the newly founded National Gazette lost no time in attacking Federalist leaders and their policies. So dangerous were these attacks to the Secretary of the Treasury's plans, that in July of 1792, Hamilton tossed aside the dignity of his office to crudely attack Freneau. Hamilton charged that as a paid translator of the government, Freneau had no right to criticize the Federalists. Writing under the pen name Brutus, Freneau responded with even more accusa- tions of Hamilton's practices and charged that the party editor, John Fenno, carried on illegal business deals with the Bank of the United States. In addition to stirring up public sentiment in the nation's capital, Freneau's wit and brashness encouraged numerous anti-Federalist editors in other states to take 17Holliday, Wit and Humor, p. 180. 16 up the fight. This they did either by reprinting ex- changes from the National Gazette or by writing their own essays. Whichever method they chose, the result was a torrent of anti-Federalist abuse aimed at the United States government. The culmination of this "war" occurred during the summer of 1792 when Freneau began attacking President wash- ington. In the Gazette of August 8th, Freneau satirized Washington as a king living in a fantasy world unaware of his subject's needs. "We have given him the powers of a king. He gives out proclamations like a king, he receives congratulations on his birthday like a king and like a king, he forgets his old friends," Freneau wrote.18 He went on to satirize Washington's private carriage as a symbol of wealth and decadence. Cast your eye on that huge and glittering machine, drawn by six horses. I see three fellows, called footmen stationed behind it ... gorgeously attired indeed, but slaves ... some great idol was within.19 Shortly after this essay appeared, Washington re- primanded Jefferson and Hamilton for their vicious journal- ism. Jefferson denied that he had ever written for the Gazette, but Hamilton was forced to admit that he had penned some of the bitter essays against Jefferson. Jef- ferson staunchly defended the right of the Gazette to 18Philip M. Marsh, The WOrks of Philip Freneau (Minneapolis: Dillon Press, 1967) p. 201. 19Marsh, The WOrks of Philip Freneau, p. 222. 17 print the truth as it saw it and uttered his famous state- ment: If the government is virtuous, it need not fear the free operation of attack and defense. Nature has given to man no other means of sifting out the truth, either in religion, law or politics.20 Freneau, of course, was not to be checked by any such official meeting nor by any statement of the presi- dent. He contined satirizing the Federalist party with as much vigor as before. Only when Jefferson left the Cabinet in 1733 and the National Gazette began to die of financial malnutrition did Freneau's satire cease to be heard in the nation's capitol. Freneau had capitalized on the innovative printing techniques of his time and on a more politically aware and literate public to advance his journalistic device. After Freneau's death another journalist came along who attrac- ted the largest newspaper audience of any satirist up to his time and lead all satirists in developing this art form in the press. His name was Seba Smith and his down- home, earthy satirical character was Major Jack Downing. Seba Smith wrote his earliest satires while assis- tant editor of a Maine weekly newspaper, the Eastern Argus. Allan R. Miller said that "While at the Argus, Smith showed independence of character and courage of conviction. his satire was a thorn in the side of local politicians."21 20Marsh, The works of Phillp Freneau, p. 111. 21Allan R. Miller, "America's First Political Satir- ist: Seba Smith of Maine/'Journalism Quarterly 47 (Autumn 1970):488. 18 Following his employment at the Argus, Smith estab- lished the first daily newspaper north of Boston, the Portland Courier. Miller describes Smith's journalism at the Courier "as objective as possible in viewing local and national matters and presented in a way that was can- 22 did, independent and nonpartisan." Smith, however, was printing a nonpartisan sheet even though he knew the Maine people were partial to cantankerous political journals. In a matter of months Smith's objectivity began to cost him and he was desperate to find a way to keep the paper alive. Smith wrote in his memoirs that he pondered this question for some time until he remembered how Ben Frank- lin had made up characters that Spoke for him. Smith re- read Franklin's essays and soon hit on an idea which he later described in these words: ... the author ... wishing to show the ridiculous position of the legislature in its true light, and also, by something out of the common track of news- paper writing, to give increased interest in pop- ularity to his little daily paper, bethought him- self of the plan to bring a green, unsophisticated lad from the country into the town with a load of axehandles, hoop-poles, and other notions for sale, and while waiting for the movements of a rather dull market, let him blunder into the halls of the legislature, and after witnessing for some days their strange doings, sit down and write an account of them to his friends at home in his own plain language. - The character Smith was referring to was Major Jack 22Miller, "Seba Smith," p. 490. 23Walter Blair, Horse Sense in American Humor (Chi- cago: University of ChiCago Press, 1912), p. 57? 19 Downing, a figure who spoke in the vernacular and who was able to relate to the masses in a personal, homely fashion. As Major Jack said himself: "Readin all this high folutin nonsense of theze other editors sets my dander to rize. I don't like it when anybody talks to me in a lingo that I don't understands and I'm damned to do somethin about it."24 walter Blair said that, "The style of the satire was as homely and snappy as a cold mug of hard cider. Readers 25 delighted in the audacity and unconventionality of it." With this literary invention, Smith's Portland Cour- ier prospered and the fame of Downing spread throughout 26 New England. 80 convincing was Smith's character that many New Englanders began to regard Major Jack as a real person. One literary historian said: Some Maine legislators cast their good votes for him to make him speaker pro tem and major general. Some of the peOple of Portland gave him votes for Mayor. Ballots for him were counted all over New Hamphsire when the state elected a governor, and one town went unanimously for him. Newspapers were always saying he was the man for one office or an- other--some even came out for him as president. More than one daily considered that a ticket with him for president and Crockett for vice-president would be hard to beat. And newsPapers everywhere in the East were glad to reprint Downing letters. Sometimes instead of shouting the news, newsboys would yell that their sheet had a new Downing piece that day.27 24Blair, Horse Sense in American Humor, p. 50. 25Blair, Horse Sense in American Humor, p. 50. 26Blair, Horse Sense in American Humor, p. 53. 27Blair, Horse Sense in American Humor, p. 64. 20 One of Smith's most famous satires was written in the spring of 1833, when he felt that President Jackson was beginning to lose touch with the needs of the people. The essay was entitled "Shaking Hands for the President," and it satirized Jackson's behavior while greeting thous- ands of well wishers at a large convention hall in Phila- delphia. Smith wrote: ... Federalists and all it made no difference. There was such a stream of 'em comin in that the hall was full in a few minutes, and it was so jammed up around the door that they couldn' t get out if they were to die. The President shook hands with all his might an hour or so, till he got so tired he couldn't hardly stand it. I took hold and shock for him once in awhile to help him along, but at last he got so tired that he had to lay down on a soft bench and shake as well as he could, and when he couldn't shake he'd nod to 'em as they come by. And at last he got so beat out, he couldn't only wrinkle his forehead and wink. Then I kinda stood behind him and reached my arm round under his and shook for him about an hour as tight as I could spring.28 The point, of course, was that to have Downing shake hands for the president implied the insincerity of Jack- son's relationship to the people. Furthermore, to depict Jackson as so weak that he had to rest, portrayed him as a slow, crumbling man of sixty-six who was quickly losing his clout. Satires of this genre gave Smith his national reputa- tion. As one historian put it: "By the middle of 1831, Major Jack Downing was known throughout the country. He 28Patricia Rickels, Seba Smith (Boston: Twayne Pub., 1977), p. 53. 21 had become famous wherever newspapers were sold. Plays were written about him and presented on the New York stage and Jack Downing songbooks and collected essays floure' iShed."29 Unfortunately for Smith, his works suffered the fate of all the pOpular writings of his time--plagarism. Col- umnists throughout the country, unchecked by copyright laws, began imitating Smith's style and signing their essays "Major Jack Downing." By 1836 Smith was disheart- ened by the flood of imitators and in the Spring of that year he killed off Major Jack and afforded him a grand funeral in a town called "Downingsville." The effective- ness of his works is best described by Miller: From his humble beginnings, Seba Smith became a creative pioneering editor. His contribution to American journalism was made when he introduced the American newspaper reader to gentle, subtle, polit- ical satire. Its merit was evidenced by the copy- ists who tried to follow his example during the mid 18003 and the development of the art of polit- ical satire in the media.30 Complementing the efforts of those historians who have examined the lives and works of America's early sat- irists, another school of Nineteenth and Twentieth Cent- ury scholars have investigated the effectiveness of satire and have theorized about how satirical prose should be written. Gilbert Highet suggests: 29Rickels, Seba Smith, p. 60. 3OAllan R. Miller, "America's First Political Satir- ist: Seba Smith of Maine," Journalism Quarterly 47 (Au- tumn, 1970):488. 22 In nearly all good satire two special methods or attitudes are essential. The first is to describe a painful or absurd situation, or a foolish or wicked person or group, as vividly as possible. The satirical writer believes that most people are purblind, insensitive, perhaps anaesthetized by custom and dullness and resignation. He wishes to make them see the truth--at least that part of truth which they habitually ignore. Second, when a satir- ist uses uncompromisingly clear language to describe unpleasant facts and people, he intends to do more than make a statement. He intends to shock his read- ers. By compelling them to look at a sight they had missed or shunned, he first makes them realize the truth, and then moves them to a feeling of pro- test. Most satirists enhance those feelings by careful choice of language. They employ not only accurate descriptive words, but also words which are apt to startle and dismay the average reader. Bru- tally direct phrases, taboo expressions, nauseating imagery, callous and crude slang--these are parts of the vocabulary of almost every satirist.3l Highet also contends that effective satire is com-. posed of eleven essential devices: irony, paradox, anti- thesis, parody, colloquialism, anticlimax, topicality, 32 obsecenity, violence, vividness and exaggeration. Percy H. Whiting, author of How to Speak and Write Humor, suggests that to write satire the author must em- ploy exaggeration, anti-climax, understatements, asides, irreverance, over-ornate language, mutiliated quotations 33 Whiting contends that a mastery and mangled cliches. of a certain, mechanical, step-by-step approach will en- able a writer to produce all kinds of humorous material. 31Gilbert Highet, The Anatomy of Satire (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1962), p. 19. 32Highet, The Anatomy of Satire, p. 18. 33Percy H. White, How to Speak and Write Humor (Boston: Twayne Pub. Co., 1968), p. 28. 23 His six steps are: Step 1. Write out--or think out--your topic. Step 2. Decide on the spots that need a dash of humor. Step 3. Put your list of humorous devices on the desk in front of yor. Step 4. Select a word, phrase, sentence, or para- graph at or near the Spot that needs humor- izing and write down all the associated words, phrases, or ideas that pop into your head. Step 5. Select a humorous device and check it against the associations you have recorded. Step 6. When you get a humorous idea, even if it is not too promising, write it down. Then pol- ish it.3 Robert Elliott and David Worcester, while not detail- ing how satirical prose should be written, have theorized on the necessary elements of effective satire. Elliott35 stresses the importance of violence and combativeness in satire, while W'orcester36 emphasizes the inclusion of burlesque and Rabel- ais humor in effective satire. In addition to these content analyses of satire and humor, attempts have been made at empirically studying the persuasive effect of satire. One study measured reader responses to the satire of 34White, How to Speak and Write Humor, p. 34. 35Robert Elliott, The Power of Satire (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1960). 36David WOrcester, The Art of Satire (Cambridge, England: Cambridge Press, 1940). 24 Art Buchwald.37 Another study used a radio audience to see if satirical radio drama was persuasive.38 Four studies used audiences to examine the effect of humor in persuasive 39 speech and one study used editorial cartoons to measure the persuasiveness of satire.4o Dr. Charles Gruner, who has conducted six studies on the persuasiveness of satire, has examined all of these stu- dies and sums up his findings as follows: There exist but few experimental studies of satire's persuasive impact, but their findings suggest that oral satire directed against a concept, such as "censorship" may be ineffective largely because of misunderstanding of it by the listeners. And when the satirist's thesis is misunderstood, persuasion can hardly result. But the studies hint that satire may be persuasive if the audience does perceive the satire's thesis. Gruner found that professional satire (written by Art Buchwald) produced statis- tically significant attitude shifts when the reader's were told the writer's thesis. The same kind of in- ability to fathom a writer's intent has been well documented for the political cartoon, also. The studies cited above concerned satire directed against an abstract concept. Only two known studies have used what the writer calls "ad hominem satire," that is, satire directed against persons (or types of persons). One study indicates that bigoted 37Charles Gruner, "Editorial Satire as Persuasion: An Experiment," Journalism Quarterly 44 (Fall l967):727-730. 38David Berlo and Hideya Kumata, "The Investigator: The Impact of Satirical Radio Drama," Journalism Quarterly 33 (Spring 1956):287-298. 39For a synopsis of these studies see: Charles Gruner, "Editorial Satire as Persuasion: An Experiment," Journalism Quarterly 44 (Fall l967):727-730. 40LeRoy M. Carl, "Editorial Cartoons Fail to Reach Many Readers," 45 Journalism Quarterly (Summer 1968):533- 555. 25 people react to cartoons ridiculing bigots with a variety of defense mechanisms. And Berlo and Kumata found that a radio program satirizing sen- ate investigating committees in general and Sena- tor McCarthyiJiparticular, succeeded in lowering attitudes toward investigating committees but tended to increase regard for McCarthy.41 In addition to this synopsis, Gruner included in this report the results from a study which was a follow-up from his 1967 investigation on the persuasiveness of Buch- wald's satire. This time Gruner used a Buchwald column which satirized Richard Nixon, however, he did not inform the test subjects as to Buchwald's thesis. He reported: It cannot be concluded from this study that varying amounts of satire directed against a public offic- ial produces varying amounts of decrement to rat- ings of that official's character or authoritative- ness.42 In conclusion, Gruner said: It is evident that a great deal more research on the effects of humor and wit must be done before we will know a small fraction of what we might believe or hOpe about the phenomena.43 In investigating reader attitudes towards satire, research studies by Osgood,44 Kaplan,45 Selltiz,46 41Charles Gruner, "Ad Hominem Satire as a Persuader: An Experiment," Journalism Quarterly 48 (Spring l97l):128. 42 Gruner, "Ad Hominem Satire," p. 129. 43Gruner, "Ad Hominem Satire," p. 130. 44Charles Osgood, Measurement of Meaning (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1957). 45Abraham Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquiry (San Fran- cisco: Chandler Publishing, 1964f? 46Claire Selltiz, Research Methods in Social Rela- tions (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1951). 26 Likert,47 and Beals48 will be used. Their works trace the construction of attitude measuring experiments from the de- velopment of the original drafts and questionnaires to the assessment of the data by way of t-tests, multiple regression analysis and various combinations of analysis of variance. 47Rensis Likert and Gardner Murphy, Public Opinion and the Individual (New York: Russell and Russéll, 1967). 48Ralph Beals, Statistics for Economics (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1972). CHAPTER IV METHOD AND PROCEDURES The purpose of this study was to scientifically obtain a compilation of those descriptive and evaluative di- mensions which readers use in judging satirical newspaper columns. The objective was to l) acquire a list of those elements and qualities which newspaper readers deem essential to well written satire and 2) develop a scientific instrument which journalists could use to examine reader attitudes toward new3paper satire. Knowledge of the attitudes of readers toward satir- ical newspaper columns was obtained by having 210 subjects rate well written and poorly written satirical newspaper col- umns on a semantic differential scale. The subjects were asked to rate poorly written articles to provide the research- er with a cross check on their evaluations of well written articles. Responses on the semantic differential scale were factor analyzed so as to isolate those re3ponses which formed factors. A multiple discriminate analysis and multiple re- gression analysis were performed using factor scores to de- termine what judgments the subjects made in arriving at their conclusions. 27 28 Subjects The subjects were 210 Michigan State University undergraduates who were enrolled in a journalism news writing class during the spring term of 1979. Selection of the Satiric Articles The selection of the well written and poorly written satiric articles was based on a method devised by Gruner in his study on the persuasive effects of satire.l To represent the well written articles, the researcher sel- ected three columns from March, 1979, issues of the Wigh- ington Post written by Art Buchwald, a nationally syndi- cated satirist. To represent the poorly written satires, the researcher selected three satires written during March, 1979, by students for various Michigan State University campus newspapers. To validate all the articles as satiric, the re- searcher applied Gruner's Dictionary-Treatise Test.2 This test consists of analyzing the content of satiric essays to determine if they meet the definitions of satire estab- 3 lished by the scholarly treatises of Swabie, Highet4 and lCharles Gruner, "An Experimental Study of Satire as Persuasion," Speech Monographs 23 (June 1965):l49-153. 2Gruner, "Satire as Persuasion," p. 150. 3Marie Collins Swabie, Comic Laughter: A Philosophr ical Essay (New Haven: Yale Ufilversity Press, I951). 4Highet, Anatomy of Satire. 29 Johnson,5 and by the dictionary definitions of Oxford,6 Webster7 and Funk and Wagnalls.8 A panel of six Michigan State University journalism professors read the six ar- ticles to see if they met the Dictionary-Treatise Test. The professors agreed unanimously that the articles were satiric. For an example of the Dictionary-Treatise Test, see Appendix A. To further validate the articles as well written and poorly written, the same panel of six Michigan State Uni- versity journalism professors read all six articles and then ranked order them from "best written" to "worst written" The professors rated the three columns by Buch- wald as the best written and the three columns by the stu- dent satirists as the worst written. Creation of the Semantic Differential Scale To discern what elements readers use in evaluating satire, it was necessary to create a semantic differential SEdward Johnson, A Treasury of Satire (New York: Barton Press, 1945). 6The Oxford Illustrated Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975). 7Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam Co., 1965). 8Funk and Wagnall's Standard Dictionary of the English Language V61. 2 (New York} Funk and WagnalITs Publishing, 1974). 30 scale. Selltiz,9 Osgood,lo Backstromll and Fishbein12 state that the semantic differential scale is one of the most valid and reliable attitude measuring devices used in social science research. "The semantic differential scale is one of the most effective means for understand- 13 "The use of ing people's perceptions," said Selltiz. the semantic differential scale to measure attitude is probably one of the most distinctive and indispensible concepts in American social psychology," said Fishbein.14 Selltiz said that when constructing a semantic dif— ferential scale, it is important to provide statements that are targeted at the test subjects' attitudes and 15 Thus, in constructing the semantic dif- definitions. ferential scale, the researcher had 60 journalism students, representative of the 210 test subjects, write as many evaluative antonyms, synonyms and adjectives for the word satire as they could think of. This data was then edited 9Selltiz, Research in Social Relations, p. 177. 10Charles Osgood, The Measurement of Meaning (Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1957): 11Charles Backstrom and Gerald Hursh, Survey Research (Evansville, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1963). 12Martin Fishbein, Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement (New York: Wiley Co., I967)} 13 Selltiz, Research in Social Relations, p. 178. l4Fishbein, Readings in Attitude, p. 75. lsSelltiz, Research in Social Relations, p. 101. 31 to omit repititious responses and used to create the items in the semantic differential scale. See Appendix B for a copy of this semantic scale. The scale also served as a manipulation check on the classification of the good and bad articles and as a dependent measure. Administration of the Semantic Differential Scale On April 13, 1979, the researcher distributed the semantic scale and one of the six satires to each one of 210 students enrolled in a Michigan State University news writing class. The students were instructed on how to use the scale and were given 15 minutes to evaluate the article. Analysis of the Data A factor analysis was performed on the subjects' semantic responses to generate items which formed factors. A multiple discriminant analysis was then performed using factor scores to determine what elements the subjects deemed as integral to well written satire. Finally, a multiple regression analysis was conducted to see if the same factors would emerge as predictors of the overall rating subjects gave the satire they read. CHAPTER V FINDINGS OF STUDY Panel and Subject Rating of Articles Analysis of the panel's and subjects' rank ordering of the articles shows the two groups to be identical in their evaluations of good and bad satire. Table 1 pro- vides the means for these ratings on the combined data from the expert panel and subjects and the rank ordering of the articles by each group. Table 1. Overall Rating of Panel and Student Article Evaluations Well Written Means Sample Panel Student Articles Size Rankings Rankings Art. 2 2.34 35 1 1 Art. 6 2.74 35 2 2 Art. 4 2.88 34* 3 3 Poorly Written Articles Art. 5 4.74 35 4 4 Art. 1 3.77 35 5 5 Art. 3 4.91 35 6 6 *One case missing from data. 32 33 Articles were numbered one through six and rated on a seven point "superior to terrible" semantic differ— ential scale. The similarity between the rank orderings of the panel with those of the subjects suggests that the subjects were capable of distinguishing well written sa- tire from poorly written satire. Analysis of Variance To identify the amount of variability for each of the six articles, standard deviations were computed for each article. A one-way analysis of variance was also run to confirm that the good and bad articles were differ- ent to a statistically significant degree. Table 2 pro- vides the computation of the standard deviations and Table 3 provides the variance between groups and within V. groups in the analysis of variance summary. Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations of Six Satiric Articles Article Number of Subjects Standard Deviation 1 35 1.0596 2 35 1.2113 3 35 1.2689 4 34 .9775 5 35 1.3793 6 35 1.5213 34 Table 3. Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean F Source df Squares Squares Ratio P Between Groups 5 205.5432 41.1086 26.2670 <.001 Within Groups 203 317.7008 1.5650 Total 208 523.2440 Table 3 shows that there is a significant statistical difference between the means. Such a statistical differ- ence further supports the concept that subjects were able to distinguish between well written and poorly written articles. Factor Analysis of Variables A factor analysis was run to explore how the 27 var- iables could be grouped so as to reveal certain dimensions in the data. In short, factor analysis is a linear combin- ation technique which groups the variables (linear combin- ations) into relevant categories (factors). Table 4 shows the means and the standard deviations for these 27 vari- ables.* Factor analysis was performed on the 27 variables using a Varimax Rotation with Kaiser Normalization. This process yielded six factors, which are presented in Table 5. The decision rule for determining which items were *See Appendix B for a list of these variables. 35 Table 4. Means of 27 Variables and Standard Deviation Variable Mean gziigiign 3 fair, unfair 2.97 1.37 4 unjust, just 4.88 1.53 5 valuable, worthless 3.87 1.54 6 ineffective, effective 5.02 1.55 7 sensible, ridiculous 4.17 1.44 8 funny, not funny 3.38 1.75 9 dull, interesting 4.71 1.61 10 useful, useless 3.99 1.63 11 not witty, witty 4.92 1.70 12 ridiculing, not ridiculing 3.18 1.61 13 humorous, not humorous 3.08 1.66 14 sarcastic, not sarcastic 3.11 1.68 15 Iillogical, logical 4.35 1.43 16 ironic, not ironic 3.77 1.52 17 mocking, not mocking 2.72 1.59 18 irrational, rational 4.43 1.46 19 truthful, untruthful 3.28 1.56 20 bitter, not bitter 4.60 1.30 21 antagonistic, not antagonistic 4.05 1.51 22 persuasive, not persuasive 4.07 1.65 23 exaggerated, not exaggerated' 3.10 1.51 24 silly, not silly 3.33 1.44 25 not critical, critical 4.41 1.54 26 hostile, not hostile 4.83 1.52 27 uniéalistic, realistic 4.48 1.56 36 Table 5. Varimax Rotated Factor Matrix After Rotation with Kaiser Normalization Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 .45 -.12 -.07 .14 .05 .60 4 -.32 .49 .03 -.06 -.02 -.10 5 .59 -.13 .16 .27 -.08 .38 6 -.69 .20 -.07 -.29 -.11 -.04 7 .21 -.33 .15 .18 -.ll .55 8 .79 -.09 .08 .11 .08 .24 9 -.77 .31 .05 .00 .00 -.00 10 .55 -.18 .19 .30 -.07 .14 11 -.81 .16 .04 -.15 -.01 -.09 12 .30 .04 .43 .10 .26 -.03 13 .86 -.14 -.05 .10 .09 .15 14 .45 -.02 .38 -.07 .38 .12 15 -.13 .69 .22 -.28 .14 -.19 16 .40 .02 .35 .09 .04 -.06 17 .21 -.34 .24 .19 .61 -.06 18 -.26 .55 -.02 -.34 .23 -.12 19 .19 -.17 .10 .79 -.08 .14 20 -.16 -.12 .66 -.01 -.22 .09 21 .01 -.01 .64 -.02 .10 .02 22 -.41 .49 -.22 .06 .17 -.07 23 .05 .15 .02 -.11 .56 .04 24 -.10 .17 -.12 -.08 .61 -.08 25 -.24 .30 -.45 -.36 -.16 -.05 26 .01 .ll .58 .09 -.05 .01 .35 .35 -.13 -.46 .23 -.12 N \l I 37 significantly relevant for each factor was to retain only those variables with loadings of greater than .50 on the primary factor and loadings on all secondary factors that were at least .20 or lower. Additionally, only those factors which had at least two items with adequate load- ings were retained. Using this decision rule, it was pos- sible to identify 4 factors. The items loading on each factor appear in Table 6. Table 6. Associated Relevant Items of 4 Factors Factor 1: valuable, effective, funny, interesting, dull, usefull, witty, humorous, superior Factor 2: logical, rational Factor 3: bitter, antagonistic, hostile Factor 4: mocking, exaggerated, silly It was then necessary to perform additional factor analysis to obtain the best solution. Using an Eigenvalue of 1.0,and a Scree test as criteria, it appeared that a . four-factor solution would be best. To check this conclu— sion, analyses specifying a four-factor, three-factor and two-factor solution were run. The four factor solution was clearly the strongest. The factor loadings appear in Table 7; those items selected for the final solution appear in Table 8. These 17 variables were then factor analyzed to pro- duce the final solution factor scores. The factor loadings 38 Table 7. Rotated Factor Loadings for Four-Factor Solution Variable Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 3 .53 -.27 -.04 .00 4 -.32 .44 .06 -.07 5 .63 -.34 .19 -.07 6 -.67 .33 -.09 -.17 7 .28 -.43 .13 -.11 8 .82 -.17 .09 .08 9 -.74 .26 .06 -.06 10 .55 -.37 .21 -.03 11 -.80 .24 .03 -.04 12 .27 -.01 .44 .28 13 .88 -.19 -.05 .11 14 .45 .02 .36 .38 15 -.13 .75 .25 .07 16 .36 -.05 .36 .08 17 .17 -.31 .22 .67 18 -.25 .69 -.01 .16 19 .22 -.55 .15 -.04 20 -.14 -.14 .63 -.21 21 .00 .00 .63 .11 22 -.36 .40 -.18 .08 23 .07 .24 .02 .51 24 -.09 .27 -.13 .57 25 -.21 .46 -.45 -.23 26 .00 .02 .59 -.05 27 -.34 .60 -.15 .16 39 Table 8. Items with the Highest Loadings on the Four Retained Factors Factor 1 - Amusement Factor 2 - Reality 3 fair, unfair 15 illogical, logical 5 valuable, worthless 18 irrational, rational 6 ineffective, effective 19 truthful, untruthful 8 funny, not funny 27 unrealistic, realistic 9 dull, interesting 11 not witty, witty 13 humorous, not humorous Factor 3 - Provoking 20 bitter, not bitter 21 antagonistic, not antagonistic 26 hostile, not hostile Factor 4 - Mockery 17 mocking, not mocking 23 exaggerated, not exaggerated 24 silly, not silly 40 appear in Table 9. Factor scores were computed from these loadings and these scores became the data for the independ- ent variables in the subsequent discriminant and regression analysis. Multlple Discriminant Analysis A multiple discriminant analysis was run using the four factors as independent variables and the two groups, good and bad articles, as the dependent variable. This procedure analyzed how well the subjects discriminated on the four factors in terms of the well written and poorly written articles. According to the Wilks Lamda test statistic in Table 10 the subjects were able to discriminate on 4 factors at the .001 level of significance. However, Table 11 shows that only three of the four factors were significant pre- dictors; factor 3, provocation, was not. Table 12 shows the rank order of importance of the factors (humor, ra- tionality, mocking, antagonism) and Table 13 shows that using the discriminant coefficients to predict classifica- tion, overall 71 percent of all cases were correctly class- ified. This is a very satisfactory classification rate. Multiple Regression Analysis A multiple regression analysis using variable 28,* as the dependent variable and the 4 factors as the *Variable 28 allowed subject to rate article from superior to terrible. 41 Table 9. Factor Loadings for Final Four-Factor Solution Variables Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 3 .56 -.19 -.04 -.02 5 .63 -.30 .13 -.07 6 -.69 .29 -.03 -.14 8 .85 -.11 .09 .08 9 -.76 .19 .07 -.05 11 -.83 .19 .07 -.02 13 .89 -.13 -.05 .10, 15 -.20 .65 .21 .07 17 .20 -.29 .17 .78 18 -.29 .68 -.01 .14 19 .26 -.58 .14 .01 20 -.09 -.12 .69 -.16 21 .03 .00 .71 .19 23 .08 .29 -.02 .46 24 -.08 .31 -.13 .54 26 .03 .04 .58 -.02 27 -.37 .62 -.13 .11 42 Table 10. Wilks Lamda Statistic Canonical 2 Wilks Chi- . . . Correlation Rc Lamda Square D'F° Significance .49586 .25 .75412 56.43951 4 .0001 Table 11. Wilks Lamda (U-Statistic) and Univariate F- Ratio with 1 and 202 Degrees of Freedom for Four Factors Variable Wilks Lamda F P Fac. 1 .8209 44.0564 < .05 Fac. 2 .9339 14.2982 < .05 Fac. 3 .9996 .0879 > .10 Fac. 4 .9806 3.9981 < .05 Table 12. Rank Ordering of Final Four Factors Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Amusement Reality Provoking Mockery humorous rational antagonistic mocking funny logical bitter silly witty realistic hostile interesting truthful effective valuable fair *Factors are rank ordered from most important to least important. 43 Table 13. Classification of Cases Acutal Group N of Cases Predicted Group Membership Name Code Bad Good Bad 1 . 101 ‘ 72. 29. 71.3 PCT 28.7 PCT Good 2 103 30. 73. 29.1 PCT 70.9 PCT 71.1 percent of known cases correctly classified. Chi-Square = 36.255; Significance = .0001 independent variable showed how the 4 factors predicted along a continuum. Table 14 shows that factor 1 and fac— tor 2 accounted for most of the variance. Overall, the 4 factors accounted for 60 percent of the variance. 44 Table 14. Multiple Regression Analysis Dep. Var. Mean Response Standard Deviation 28 3.6 1.6 Multiple R .77644 R Square .60286 Adjusted R Square .59488 Std. Dev. 1.01124 Analysis of Variance DE Sum of Sguares Regression 4. 308.91 Residual 199. 203.50 Coefficient of Variability 28.5 PCT Mean Square Significance I”! 77. 75. .0001 1.0226 CHAPTER VI DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study was undertaken to examine reader atti- tudes toward satire in order to determine those elements which readers deem essential to well written satire. Evaluation of the data showed that four factors could be integral to well written satire. Discussion The results of this study reveal that readers eval- uate satire along four dimensions labeled respectively as 1) Amusement, 2) Reality, 3) Provocation and 4) Mockery. According to the multiple regression tests and the discrim- inant analysis, the amusement factor and the reality fac- tor appear to be important elements of satirical composi- tion. It appears that the more these two elements appear in a satire, the better the satire will be. The mockery factor was found to be important only in the discriminant analysis. This suggests that while mockery not be as significant as amusement and reality, still should be considered by satirists when constr,cting a satirical / / essay. Neither the discriminant analysis nor the 45 46 regression analysis found any importance in the provoca- tion factor in discriminating between good and bad satire. However, the fact that it emerged in the factor analysis indicates that it is an element of satire that readers recognize. One possible reason it was not a significant predictor of effectiveness is that its relationship may be curvillinear. The conclusion is that a well written satire should be amusing, humorous, funny and witty. Such elements appear to serve the function of sugarcoating the antagon- istic, hostile tone of satires. Thus, it would appear that a writer is more likely to win over his reader in an essay that is humorous, and entertaining. As Benjamin Franklin, the first newspaper satirist in America, said: "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." The high ranking of the "interesting" variable also supports the notion that a satire should be lively, amusing and entertaining. However, because rationality, logic, reality and truth ranked high, it is probable that the satirist should not include too much humor, funniness and wittiness in his essay since too much of these might violate the rational- ity factor and make the article appear as if its sole purpose were to entertain, rather than to persuade. Also, overplaying humor might decrease the credibility of the author. It is possible that the satirist would be seen more as a comedian, than as a writer with a serious 47 message. Finally, the reality factor suggests that the satirist is better off jabbing at real people and events, rather than at abstractions. Although neither the multiple regression nor the discriminant analysis showed the provocation factor (an- tagonism, bitterness and hostility) to be significant, the review of the literature suggests that effective satire is composed, in part, of these elements. For example, Highet said that, "The purpose of satire is to punish l Swabie stated that, "To ridicule the vices and evil." follies of mankind is the purpose of satire."2 It appears that a well written satire, while being amusing, should subtly antagonize its victim in a bitter, hostile manner. The result being that the victim is made a laughing stock while he is simultaneously being held up to public ridi- cule. As Mark Twain said, "It's difficult for any man to stand in the face of laughter."3 The high statistical ratings of mockery and silli- ness suggest that these too may be elements of effective satire. It follows that if a satirist desires to antagon- ize his victim, he might succeed by making his target appear to look silly through mockery. The fact that readers cited the well written articles as effective and lHighet, Anatomy of Satire, p. 177. 2Swabie, Comic Laughter, p. 201. 3Blair, Horse Sense, p. 56. 48 valuable suggests that the essays served a worthwhile function for the reader. Such a finding also serves as a crosscheck that all the elements in the 4 factors are very likely to be essential to well written satire. The reality factor, (containing the fairness and truth variables) suggest that the satirist be honest in his essay. That is, if it is the satirist's job to jab and poke at wrongdoings, he should write in a straight- forward style. The inclusion of the fairness factor is also likely to increase the credibility of the author. The fairness element also suggests that the subjects understood the point of the satires in this study. It is unlikely that they could have made such ethical deci- sions if they did not understand the authors' intentions. Finally, the logic factor implies that the satir- ist should write in a logical, lucid manner. For surely if the meaning of a satire is misinterpreted by the read- er, it can hardly be effective. Conclusion The preceding discussion has illustrated that cer- tain elements could be integral to well written satire. It is possible that the newspaper satirist could create more effective essays if he considers the inclusion of these elements. Secondly, the attitude measuring device used in this study appears to be a useful tool for measuring read- er reactions toward both amateur and professional satire. 49 And it is possible that satirists could employ this in- strument, or a more refined one, to examine reader reac- tions toward their own work. Recommendations This study provides support that the amusement, reality, provoking and mocking factors are necessary for well written satire. Additional studies could employ more complex statistical procedures to further test the appli- cability of these factors to well written satire. Of special interest would be an analysis of the provoking factor which was supported strongly by the review of the literature, but received no statistical support under the discriminate analysis or multiple regression tests. Furthermore, it is recommended that other forms of popular satire be explored. Little is known about the construction or effectiveness of the satirical political cartoon, the satirical magazine, or the satirical radio or television show. Possibly some attitude measuring de- vices could be constructed, similar to the one used in this study, to assess reader and audience reactions to these other satirical art forms. Such research could continue to provide more specificity concerning audience attitudes toward this phenomenon we call humor. AP PEND ICE S APPENDIX A DICTIONARY TREATISE TEST APPENDIX A DICTIONARY TREATISE TEST INSTRUCTIONS: Below are six traditionally accepted defin- itions of satire. Please read each satiric article and indicate in the check box on the top of the article whether or not these meanings define the type of prose you just read. 5 Poem or prose composition ridiculing vice or folly; a branch of literature containing such compositions; use of ridicule, sarcasm or irony to expose folly. --Oxford Dictionary The use of sarcasem, irony or keen wit in denouncing abuses or follies; A written composition in which vice, folly or incapacity is held up to ridicule. --Funk and Wagnall's Standard Dictionary of the English Language TOpical literary composition holding up human or individ- ual vices, folly or abuses or shortcomings to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque or irony. --Webster's Third New International Dictionary To ridicule the vices and follies of mankind is the bus- iness of satire. --Marie Collins Swabie The purpose of satire is, through laughter and invective, to cure folly and to punish evil. --Gilbert Highet The one thing common to all satire is criticism. --Edgar Johnson 50 APPENDIX B SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE 51 APPENDIX B SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE INSTRUCTIONS: Please read the attached satirical arti- cle and carefully rate it on the semantic differential scale provided below. How would you best describe the satirical article that you just read? (Indicate choice by circling the number. Please do not omit any items.) variable 3* fair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 unfair variable 4 unfair 1‘2 3 4 5 6 7 just variable 5 valuable l 2 3 4 5 6 7 worthless variable 6 ineffective l 2 3 4 5 6 7 effective variable 7 sensible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ridiculous variable 8 funny 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not funny variable 9 dull l 2 3 4 5 6 7 interesting variable 10 useful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 useless variable 11 not witty l 2 3 4 5 6 7 witty variable 12 ridiculing l 2 3 4 5 6 7 not ridiculing variable 13 humorous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not humorous variable 14 sarcastic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not sarcastic variable 15 illogical l 2 3 4 5 6 7 logical variable 16 ironic l 2 3.4 5 6 7 not ironic *Variable 1 was the number of the semantic differen- tial scale and variable 2 was the number of the article. variable variable variable varialbe varialbe variable variable variable variable variable varialbe Overall, how would you rate this (variable 28) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 52 mocking irrational truthful bitter antagonistic not persuasive exaggerated silly not critical hostile unrealistic superior H F4 la H m ox tn not mocking rational untruthful not bitter not antagonistic persuasive not exaggerated not silly critical not hostile realistic of satire? terrible BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Aaker, David and Myers, John. Advertisinngana ement. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentibe Hall, 1975. Aswell, James. Native American Humor. New York: Garden City Publishing Co., I949. Beals, Ralph. Statistics for Economics. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1972. Bernstein, Burton. Look MaL_I_§m K001 and Other Casuals. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, I977. Bier, Jesse. The Rise and Fall of American Humor. Chi- cago: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968. Blair, Walter. ngse Sense in American Humor. N. Y.: Harcourt, Brace Publishing Co., 1945. Bounds, William G.; Cormier, William H.; Huck, Schuyler W. Reading Statistics & Research. N. Y.: Harper and Row. I973. Dawes, Robyn. Fundamentals of Attitude Measurement. N. Y.: Wiley Sons Inc., 1972. Elliott, Robert C. The Power 9f Satire: Magic, Rirual, Art. Princeton, J. J.: Princeton University Press, 1960. Emery, Edwin. The Press and America. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: PrenEiCe Hall, 1972. Fishbein, Martin. Readings inTAttitude, Theory and Mea- surement. N. Y.: Wiley Co., 1967. Fleet, F. R. A‘Theory of Wit and Humor. N. Y.: Kennikat Press, 1970. Fry, William F. Sweet Madness: A Study of Humor. San Francisco: Pacific Books, 1963. 53 54 Granger, Bruce. Political Satire in the American Revolu- tion. N. Y.: CornelIiUniverEity Press, 1960. Haweis, H. R. American Humorists. N. Y.: Funk and Wag- nalls, 18821 Highet, Gilbert. The Anatomy_of Satire. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1962. Holliday, Carl. The Wit and Hgmor of Colonial Days. N. Y.: Ungar Publishing Co., 1960. Holsti, Ole. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley,7I969. Hovland, Carl. Experiments in Mass Communication. Prince- ton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1949. . Communication and Persuasion. New Haven, Ct.: Yale University Press, 1953. Johnson, Ellen. The Satirist as Political and Social Commentator. Chapel Hill, N. C.: Universtiy of North Carolina Press, 1973. Johnson, E. A Treasury of Satire. New York: Barton Press, 1945. Kaplan, Abraham. The Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler, 1964: Kobre, Sidney. Develo ment of American Journalism. Dubuque: WiIIiam Brown, 1969. Leacock, Stephen. Great Pages of American Humor. N. Y.: Garden City Press, I9 6. Lemon, Migel. Attitudes and Their Measurement. London: Batsford LEd.,'I973. Likert, Renis; Murphy, Gardner. Public Oplnion and the Individual. N. Y.: Russel and Russel, I967. Lynn, Kenneth. The Comic Tradition in America. Garden City, N. Y.: DoubIeday, I946. Marsh, Philip. The WOrks of Philip Freneau. Minneapolis: Dillon Press, 1967. Masson, Thomas. Our American Humorists. N- Y.: Dodd Mead, 1931. Nye, Russel B. Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. Cam- bridge, Mass.:Riverside Press, 1958. 55 Osgood, Charles. The Measurement of Meanirg. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinoi§ Press, 1957. Rickels, Patricia. Seba Smith. Boston: Twayne Publish- ing, 1977. Rourke, Constance. American Humor. N. Y.: Harcourt, Brace, 1931. Rubin, Louis. The Comic Imagination in American Litera- ture. Camden, N. J.: Rutgers University Press, I973. Sappenfield, James. A Sweet Instruction. Edwardsville, Illinois: Southern Illinois Press, 1973. Selltiz, Claire. Research Methods in Social Relations. N. Y.: Holt, Rifiehart & Winston, 1951. Swabie, Marie Collins.. Comic Laughter: Afghilosophical Essay. New Haven: Yale University Press, 195i} Tandy, Jennette. Cragkerbox Philosophers. N. Y.: Colum- bia University Press, 1925. White, Percy. How to Speak and Write Humor. Boston: Twayne Publishing, 1968. Worcester, David. The Art of Satire. Cambridge: Cam- bridge Press, I949. Yates, Norris. The American Humorist. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State Universtiy, 1964. Articles Baker, Donna and MacDonald, James, "Newspaper Editorial Readership and Length of Editorials," Journalism Quarterly 38 (Autumn 1961):473-479. Berlo, David K. and Kumata, Hideya. "The Investigator: The Impact of a Satirical Radio Drama." Journal- ism Quarterly 33 (Summer, 1956):287-298. Carl, LeRoy. "Editorial Cartoons Fail to Reach Many Readers." Journalism Quarterly 45 (Autumn, 1968): 533-35. Funkhouser, G. Ray. "Tailoring Science Writing to the General Audicnce." Journalism Quarterly 50 (Summer 1973:220-26. 56 Grotta, Gerald; Larkin, Ernest; Carrell, Bob. "News vs. Advertising: Does the Audience Perceive the Journalistic Distinction?" Journalism Quarterly 53 (Autumn, l976):448-56. Gruner, Gerald. "An Experimental Study of Satire as Per- suasion." Speech Monographs 22 (June, l965):149-85. . "A Further Experimental Study of Satire as Persuasion." Speech Monographs 23 (June, 1966): 184-85. . "Editorial Satire as Persuasion." Journalism Quarterly 44 (Autumn, 1967):?27-30. . "Is Wit to Humor What Rhetoric is to Poetic?" Central States Speech Journal 21 (February, 1965): 17-220 . "Ad Hominem Satire as a Persuader." Journal- ism Quarterly 48 (Spring, 1971):128-132. Larkin, Ernest P.; Grotta, Gerald L.; DePlois, Barbara. "Newspaper Advertising: Who Reads It?" Oklahoma Journalism Reports. No. 3 (May, l975):2. Lull, P. E. "The Effectiveness of Humor in Persuasive Speech." Speech Monographs VII (1940):26-40. McCombs, Maxwell and Mauro, John, "Predicting Newspaper Readership from Content Characteristics," Journalism Quarterly 54 (Spring l977):3-7, 49. Miller, Alan. "America's First Political Satirist: Seba Smith of Maine." Journalism Quarterly_47 (Autumn, 1970):488-92. Patterson, Joyce; Booth, Laurel and Smith, Russel, "Who Reads About Science?" Journalism Quarterly 46 (Autumn l969):599-602. Pokorny, Gary and Gruner, Charles. "An Experimental Study of the Effect of Satire Used as Support in a Per- suasive Speech." Western Speech (Summer, 1969): 204-11. Root, Robert and Schrock, Paul. "Reader Interest Research with Children," Journalism Quarterly 41 (Summer 1964): 443-444. Schweitzer, John and Goldman, Elaine, "Does Newspaper Com- petition Make a Difference to Readers?" Journalism Quarterly 52 (Winter 1975):?06-710. 57 Smith, Henry and Knox, James. "The Needlers: Our Journal- istic Satirists." Journalism Quarterly 39 (Summer, l962):309-16. Smith, Henry. "The Two Major Downings: Rivalry in Polit- ical Satire." Journalism Quarterly 41 (Winter, 1964): 74-78 0 Tannenbaum, Percy H. "Communications of Science Informa- tion." Science. Vol. 140, (May, 1963):579-83. "Illllllllll'lllllllll