Rude by Nature? The Impact of Political Cartoons on the Perception of Politicians

Political satire arguably predates democratic politics and cartoons constitute a widespread traditional form of political satire. And although cartoons that truly shock the world are an exception, it is an essential feature of any cartoon to be critical: the political carton is incivil by nature. In the words of Daryl Cagle “Cartoonists tear things down”. The political cartoon has never developed into a core research topic in any field of study. Cartoons are located at the periphery of several disciplines. Moreover, since cartoons are not only incivil but also humorous by nature, the fear of mistreating them by serious study has added to reluctance. “Humor is a fragile product that can easily be damaged by academic scrutiny”, according to Peter Duus. As a result, there is more speculation and, at best, anecdotal evidence on the impact of political cartoons than there are sound findings coming from empirical studies. If cartoons are essentially meant to hurt, do they in effect cause damage? This Paper is on the impact of political cartoons on the image of three well known Dutch politicians (prime minister Mark Rutte, Labor leader Diederik Samsom and the radical right populist Geert Wilders). The research question is addressed on the basis of a unique survey experiment that was executed in late Spring 2016; a total of over 3,000 respondents were randomly distributed over 12 control and experimental groups. The stimulus was a visual news message and the relation to be examined is how exposure to the visual message, i.e., a political cartoon (or better: two cartoons from two different cartoonists), would influence the respondents’ evaluation of the politicians on several personality traits and on affinity, trust and vote intent. Do cartoons have a negative impact?