References

• Bartlett, E. (2012). Is The Daily Show Bad for Democracy?An analysis of cynicism and its significance.
• Baum. (2002). Sex, Lies, and War: How Soft News Brings Foreign Policy to the Inattentive Public. American Political Science Review.
• Baum, M. (2003a). Soft News Goes to War: Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy in the New Media Age. Princeton University Press.
• BAUM, M. A. (2003). Soft News and Political Knowledge: Evidence of Absence or Absence of Evidence? Political Communication.
• Baum, M. A. (2005). Talking the Vote: Why Presidential Candidates Hit the Talk Show Circuit. American Journal of political Science.
• Baumgartner, J. &. (2006). The Daily Show effect: Candidate evaluations, efficacy, and American Youth. American Politics Research, 34, , 341-367.
• Baumgartner, J. (2007). Humor on the next frontier: Youth, online political humor, and the Jib Jab effect. Social Science Computer Review, 319-338
• Cao, X. (2008). Political comedy shows and knowledge about primary campaigns: The moderating effects of education. In Mass Communication & Society (pp. 43-61).
• Cao, X. (2008). Political Comedy Shows and Public Participation in Politics.
• Charles R, G. (1970). The effect of humor in dull and interesting informative speeches. central state speech jornal.
• Dowd, M. (2006). America's anchors. Rolling Stone. International journal of communication, 56.
• Gerorge Grebner, L. G. (1982). Charting the mainstream: Television's contribution to political orientations. Journal of Communication.
• Graber, D. (2008). Why Political Humor is Serious Business. In J. C. Baumgartner, & J. S.
• Graber, M. (2002). Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 . The Journal of Public and Political Affairs, Academy of Political Science.
• Graber, D. A. (2008). Why Political Humor is Serious Business. In J. C. Baumgartner, & J. S. .
• Griffin, D. (1994). Satire: A Critical Reintroduction. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky.
• Gruner, C. R. (1965). An experimental study of satire as persuasion. Speech Monographs.
• Gulas, W. &. (1992). The impact of Humor in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 35-59.
• Holbert., R. L. (2013).
• Kellner, D. (2003). Media Culture. London and New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
• Kinder, S. I. (1987.2010). News That Matters. Chigaco Studies in American Politics.
• Kirby, M. (1975). On Political Theatre. The Drama Review: TDR, 129-135. http://www.pbs.org/now/arts/politicaltheater.html
• Maxwell McCombs, D. S. (2006). The Evolution of Agenda-Setting Research.
• McQuail, D. (2005). McQuail's Mass Communication Theories. Sage Publications.
• Moran. (1996). Short-term mood change, perceived funniness and the effect of humor stimuli. Behavioran Medicine, 32-38.
• Niven, D. L. (2003). The political content of late-night comedy. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 8, , 118-133.
• Niven, D., Lichter, S. R., & Amundson,. (2003). The political content of late night comedy. The International Journal of Press Politics.
• Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. A&C Black.
• Pernecky, T. (2016). Epistemology and Metaphysics for Qualitative Research. London, UK: Sage Publications.
• Pew Research Center. (2008). Internet's Broader Role in Campaign. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
• Spotts H.E, W. M. (1997). Assessing the use and impact of humoron advertising effectiveness: A contigency Approach. Journal of Advertising , 17-23.
• Young, D. &. (2006). Dispelling late night myths: News consumption. Journal of experimental social psychology.
• Young, D. (2006). Mass Communication and Society. In Late-night comedy and the salience of the candidates' caricatured traits in the (pp. 339-366).
• Young, D. R. (2006). Dispelling late-night myths: News consumption among latenight comedy viewers and the predictors of exposure to various late night shows. Harvard International Journal of Press/Poitics, 113-134.