Politics and Younger Voters

Billboards? Newspapers? Pop-ups? Email bursts? RSS feeds? Facebook campaigns? Television and radio advertising? Try “none of the above” if you are dealing with millennials (and thereabouts). Even for those heading towards the dreaded “forty plus.” For those who are church-goers, activist pastors have influence from those who go to church. Others are influenced by the politics of their families, a factor that draws additional support from opinions of peers as well. Colleges are big influencers as peer opinions morph minds and apply peer pressure. As they step into the work world, new peer pressures arise.

Too many are simply apathetic and don’t care or vote. But for politicians seeking to apply their SuperPac and campaign contributions through organized efforts, from speaking campaigns to accessing mass media, social media… all aimed at rising above the clutter… reaching the next generation of voters is essential for survival. Tweet? You need followers. Facebook. You need awareness as Facebook is losing younger followers who want to avoid posting on a service that likely reaches their parent and grandparents. Older politicians seem particularly inept at reaching younger supporters. Getting seen in the right place, a willingness to accept humor and self-deprecation, and seeming more open and vulnerable are difficult for too many politicos.

Where the young really find traction has frequently been towards clever and irreverent sites that jab at those in power, pointing out hypocrisy, smart, funny and entertaining. For older folks, who even know about the so-called “fake news” shows, they catch them on something called “television” (Comedy Channel) or in the highlights of such programming repeated on mainstream traditional telecast. Younger viewers picked up the same “fake” news programs on their mobile phones, tablets or computers, often with the additional materials that are not made available on the telecasts. They love these assaults against the system (as do I, I have to admit). They loved the “fake” mass political rallies in Washington, D.C. fomented by the dynamic duo (Colbert spun off from “The Daily Show”).

Writing for the New York Times First Draft, February 12^th, Alan Rappeport looks at the huge loss of younger access, respect earned over the years, as two amazing “fake news” hosts transition from such programming: “Jon Stewart’s departure from ‘The Daily Show,’ coming after the loss of ‘The Colbert Report,’ not only creates a hole in Comedy Central’s lineup but leaves lawmakers and candidates without a critical outlet for reaching young voters.

“‘Clearly both ‘Daily Show’ and ‘Colbert’ have been a draw for the younger age cohorts, especially relative to your mainstream news outlets,’ said Amy Mitchell of the Pew Research Center… The median age of ‘Daily Show’ viewers is 36, Ms. Mitchell said, and 39 percent were under 30 in 2012, the most recent data available from the Pew Center. ‘The Colbert Report,’ which went off the air when Stephen Colbert left Comedy Central to replace David Letterman on CBS, had an even younger viewership.

“Such youth appeal has even those who have been mocked by Mr. Stewart mourning his departure… ‘As a fan and an occasional victim of Jon Stewart, I will certainly be sad to see him go,’ Josh Earnest, White House press secretary, said in his daily briefing… Mr. Stewart’s audience leans Democratic, but ‘The Daily Show’ has been a popular stop for Republicans who want to prove their cool and their mettle under the host’s needling… ‘He was always fair to me on his show,’ Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said, ‘even though he was wrong.’”

But “fake news” has more of the ring of truth than so many mainstream network news services. It really wasn’t so “fake.” In fact, viewers were able to get the thrust of just about every major news story that was otherwise filling the airways. While other hosts were producing similar assaults against the establishment, from Bill Maher and John Oliver (a graduate from “The Daily Show”), no one had the numbers of eyeballs among younger demographics of Stewart or Colbert. The major networks – CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox – have average viewers which average, and I will be polite, age 50 plus.

We know where Stephen Colbert is going, and many are wondering if Jon Stewart can live in a peaceful, family-oriented afterlife, or if the lure of directing (he wrote and directed Rosewater, a film about an Iranian journalist accused of being a spy in his homeland) or perhaps a yearning to join the political process itself (as did form Saturday Night Live comic, Al Franken, now a U.S. Senator) might seduce his next career decision.

But without these satirical leaders, journalism takes a gut-wrenching punch to the gut. Politics became entertaining. Accountability became cool. And Stewart brought a new level of truth (not “truthiness”) to the news, an oasis from the screaming matches of left and right, using humor to take down hypocrisy and inefficiency. We need a new generation of such powerful and very real journalists, ready to take on such comedic “not-so-fake-news” while maintaining an accessible humanity that makes viewers return… over and over again.

I’m Peter Dekom, and while we wish the best for Stewart and Colbert going forward, without their presence in their traditional roles, American journalism has just experienced a seminal change that just might not be for the best.