Election Satire: The Evolution of The Daily Show as a Cultural Artifact Reflecting Democratic Processes

Abstract

The Trump era marked a turning point for political satire, where The Daily Show’s coverage of the last two election cycles reveals a dynamic interplay between satire, ideology, and democratic processes. This study examines how The Daily Show has progressively altered its satirical voice and multimodal strategies to capture the changing landscape of U.S. presidential elections, spotlighting the different eras of Trevor Noah in 2020 and Jon Stewart in 2024. It decodes how news satire along with visuals reflect political and cultural moments, and the way social and political representations are depicted in this show. To achieve these aims, a Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis (MCDA) approach is used to analyze the semiotic and multimodal features of four episodes of The Daily Show, ranging from Noah’s pandemic-era coverage of the 2020 elections to Stewart’s live studio format in 2024. This article reveals both hosts’ role in social and political representation by different means of satirical and multimodal techniques. It highlights how The Daily Show has remained a cultural touchstone, adapting its style and substance to meet the demands of its time.

1. Introduction

Long before the Trump era, The Daily Show had already established itself as a pioneering satirical news program, introducing satirical infotainment as a distinct genre in the U.S. media landscape. Jon Stewart revolutionized satirical news, transforming TDS into a cornerstone of political critique and media accountability. His influence extended beyond entertainment, shaping public discourse and expectations of satire’s role in democracy. The chaos and entertainments aspects of Trump’s presidency boosted media ratings and fueled the popularity of satirical news shows, which thrived on critiquing his rhetoric and blurring the line between reality and satire (Graham, 2018). However, the Trump years intensified the role of political satire as a tool for critique and resistance, further solidifying The Daily Show (TDS) as a satirical news program that blends comedy with critical analysis, offering a unique lens through which audiences engage with U.S. elections. During the Trump era, satire became an essential framework for processing presidential debates, election structures, and the rhetoric of political discourse, reinforcing The Daily Show’s function as both entertainment and a critical voice in democratic engagement. While existing research highlights the role of satire in shaping political discourse (Momen, 2023; Boukes & Hameleers, 2020), increasing political partisanship and polarization in the U.S (Farnsworth & Lichter, 2019), comparative analyses of TDS across different cultures and contexts (Lipson et al., 2023), and limited comparative work examines how TDS has evolved, in the context of elections, across different sociopolitical contexts using MCDA. Satirical shows’ studies often focus on single election cycles (Smith, 2018) or the shift in political debates towards ideologically defined parties (Farnsworth & Lichter, 2019), neglecting the longitudinal shifts in satirical and multimodal strategies. This study addresses this gap by analyzing The Daily Show’s coverage of the 2020 and 2024 elections, focusing on the interplay of hosting styles, visual semiotics, and linguistic critique. By applying Machin and Mayr’s (2012) MCDA framework, this research contributes to a deeper understanding of how news satire adapts to changing political landscapes. The research employs MCDA to explore the show’s use of visuals, semiotics, and performative elements that construct the show’s critique of American democracy.

Satirical news employs a dynamic blend of visual and discursive modes, integrating satirical strategies such as irony, parody, and hyperbole along visuals to construct political critique (McClennen, 2023; Peifer & Lee, 2019). The study focuses on these key satirical strategies—irony, parody, and hyperbole—analyzing how they are realized through linguistic and visual techniques to challenge political rhetoric. In this research, satirical strategies operate through various linguistic mechanisms, including overlexicalization, transitivity choices, and intertextuality (Machin & Mayr, 2012), which are further explained in the methodology section. These linguistic and visual tools allow satire to simultaneously critique and engage audiences, blurring the boundaries between humor and serious critique. Given this multimodal nature—where meaning is shaped through the interplay of language, imagery, and performance—Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis (MCDA) is the most suitable framework for this study. MCDA allows for a systematic examination of how textual and visual elements work together to frame political narratives, making it an effective tool for analyzing the semiotic and ideological dimensions of satirical news discourse. Additionally, because satire operates at the intersection of media studies, linguistics, and political communication, an interdisciplinary approach is necessary. MCDA provides this by drawing on insights from discourse analysis, semiotics, and social theory, ensuring a comprehensive analysis of how satire functions within contemporary political media. This research examines how TDS critiques democratic processes, media practices, and political discourse through its use of satirical textual and visual elements, semiotic choices, and ideological framing. Textual and visual elements, including spoken language, imagery, and gestures, shape the show’s satirical tone, while semiotic choices—such as symbols, metaphors, and colors—reinforce specific interpretations (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2020).

Ideological framing determines how political figures and events are presented, either challenging or reinforcing dominant narratives (Fairclough, 1995). By engaging with democratic processes such as elections and debates, TDS functions as both a critique and a reflection of political discourse. Additionally, it critiques media practices by exposing biases and sensationalism. As a cultural artifact, satire reshapes political narratives, influencing public perception and civic engagement, thereby functioning as both entertainment and a critical voice in contemporary society. This analysis also employs transitivity as a key tool in Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis (MCDA) to examine how TDS portrays political events and actors. Transitivity analysis, rooted in Halliday’s systemic functional linguistics and further developed by Machin and Mayr (2012), identifies participants (agents or affected individuals) and their actions, analyzing material, mental, behavioral, verbal, relational, and existential processes to reveal ideological positioning.

In this paper, we analyze and compare how TDS presented the coverage of the 2020 and 2024 US elections, paying attention to Trevor Noah’s pandemic, socially distanced spoofs, and 2024 Stewart’s return in a live studio setting. The pandemic era significantly influenced The Daily Show’s satirical approach in 2020, shaping both its format and thematic focus toward a more monologue-driven style and a home-based setup that emphasized social justice, misinformation, and voter suppression—key concerns heightened during Trump’s presidency (Persily & Stewart, 2021). Without a live audience, Noah relied heavily on digital satire, parody, and irony to engage viewers, compensating for the absence of real-time audience reactions. This era highlighted the adaptability of satire in responding to crises, reinforcing its role as both a critique of political discourse and a means of public engagement.

Therefore, this research explores the evolution of The Daily Show’s satirical and Multimodal strategies in addressing the contradictions and tensions within contemporary politics. This comparative study situates TDS within the broader cultural and political landscape, analyzing its dual function as a cultural artifact and a critical voice within democratic society. By deconstructing the show’s satire on presidential debates and post-election narratives, this article sheds light on how TDS bridges entertainment and political commentary, reflecting the state of American democracy, and how it has progressively adjusted itself to entertain and remain topical. TDS illustrates, through its blend of humour, satire, visuals, and cultural exploration, new ways of perceiving and participating in the political narrative. The article attempts to answer the following research questions:

1-

How has TDS adapted its satirical and Multimodal strategies across the 2020 and 2024 U.S. elections, considering shifts in political discourse, media landscapes, and audience engagement?

2-

What stylistic, rhetorical, and visual shifts can be observed in The Daily Show’s election coverage under Trevor Noah (The Daily Show, 2020) and Jon Stewart (The Daily Show, 2024a, 2024b), and how do these reflect changes in satirical approaches to political critique?

3-

To what extent did the constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic shape the visual, aesthetic, and performative choices of TDS during the 2020’s elections, and how do these compare to the show’s post-pandemic return to a live studio format in 2024?

4-

How do The Daily Show’s multimodal and discursive elements—such as semiotic choices, transitivity, and ideological framing—construct satirical critiques of political discourse, and what insights do they provide in analyzing political representations?

1.1. The Role of Satire in Political and Media Discourse

Satire has been widely studied across various disciplines, particularly in news and media studies, for its ability to challenge dominant narratives, expose ideological biases, and serve as an alternative form of political critique. Satire, as a communication tool, is characterized by aggression, judgment, mockery, playfulness, and laughter (Simpson, 2003). News satire shows mimic journalism to critique its practices, serving as a platform for self-reflection and media criticism (Nicolaï & Maeseele, 2024). The show’s creators constantly negotiate their roles, integrating journalistic practices like fact-checking while prioritizing humor. This hybridity results in a fluid identity, where satire serves both as a means of critique and as entertainment, reflecting broader shifts in news media and the evolving role of satirical news (Nicolaï & Maeseele, 2024). It subverts societal norms through critique and challenges power structures, blending silliness with seriousness to encourage audiences to reconsider commonly accepted truths (McClennen, 2023). Unlike traditional news, satirical news engages in critical discourse by exaggerating, ridiculing, and humorously exposing contradictions in politics and media. Satire serves as a form of social or political criticism, using irony, parody, and exaggeration to challenge social norms (McClennen, 2023; Peifer & Lee, 2019). Irony, a central technique within satire, is characterized by a discrepancy between what is said and what is meant (Simpson, 2003), creating a contrast that highlights contradictions in political rhetoric or media discourse. Parody, on the other hand, is a form of imitation that mimics and exaggerates the style, language, or format of its target—often politicians, media figures, or institutions—to reveal their flaws or absurdities (Sinclair, 2020).

Satire is not considered as a distinct genre but rather a discursive mode that interacts with other forms of discourse (Simpson, 2003). It extends beyond political critique and discourse and now encompasses diverse forms of media, including art, radio, film, digital media, and television programs (LeBoeuf, 2007; Phiddian, 2013). One of the most prominent modern forms of satire is political satire news, exemplified by programs such as The Daily Show, which combines comedy with news commentary to critique political and media discourse.

1.2. The Daily Show: A Cultural Artifact in the Era of Political Satire

The rise of infotainment and political satire news shows has blurred the lines between traditional journalism and entertainment, reshaping political communication (Farnsworth & Lichter, 2019). Political satire, particularly, functions as a cultural system, revising shared knowledge, values, and symbols to shape public perception and occasionally influence political landscapes (Tesnohlidkova, 2020), and educate people (Feldman, 2024). This dual role of humour as entertainment and a political tool is reflected in what Jones (2010) describes as “entertaining politics” in satirical television. Baym (2005) identifies the satirical news shows’ hybrid format, which blends monologues, sketch comedy, and guest interviews to provide a critical take on current events, providing the example of TDS.

TDS has become a prominent example of satire’s influence in political discourse, transforming from a comedic commentary to a reliable source of political analysis. It was not anticipated that the mixture of satire, comedy, and current affairs could breed one of the most prominent types of humour on U.S television (Ali & Lloyd, 2021). TDS started with the tenure of the host Craig Kilborn in 1996, a phase of the program that had far less political focus than later versions (McClennen & Maisel, 2014, p. 81). During 1999, Jon Stewart took the lead on TDS (Pérez, 2017). During this phase, the program experienced a significant rise in viewership due to its transition toward more intensive political commentary and critique of traditional media (McClennen, 2023). This led to a reputation of a ‘‘fake news program’’ (Bartlett, 2012, p. 7). As McClennen (2023) notes, Stewart transformed satirical news by blending ironic soundbites with in-depth commentary, positioning it as a powerful alternative to traditional media. After that, the program was hosted by the South African comedian Trevor Noah; aired each Monday through Thursday on CTV (Comedy Central) in the U.S. Noah’s critique of Trump-era politics highlighted the absurdities of the administration, using satire to challenge white supremacy and police violence (McClennen, 2023). However, Jon Stewart’s return in 2024, amid rotating hosts like Jordan Klepper and Desi Lydic, marked another shift in the show’s satirical and analytical approach, bringing back a live audience format, direct political critique, and a more traditional late-night news parody style. Stewart’s 2024 critiques retained his signature blend of humour and gravitas, focusing on election strategies and voter mobilization, while also incorporating meta-commentary on media narratives and political rhetoric.

1.3. Satire and Elections

Satirical shows such as TDS are crucial in critiquing political processes, particularly during elections. Reilly (2012) argues that satire challenges the conventions of mainstream journalism by exposing the sensationalism and lack of substantive analysis in election coverage. Similarly, McClennen (2024) highlights satire’s capacity to expose political absurdities, particularly in Trump’s era, where comedians like Stewart provided sharper critiques than traditional news. Studies on TDS’s impact reveal its ability to enhance political knowledge and engagement (Tesnohlidkova, 2020; Cao, 2010; Fox et al., 2007).

The 2020 and 2024 U.S. elections showcased The Daily Show’s evolving role in political satire, particularly in its approach to election coverage and critique of political discourse. Under Trevor Noah in 2020, the show’s satire was shaped by the constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic, relying on a more intimate, monologue-driven format that emphasized social justice themes, voter suppression, and misinformation during Trump’s presidency (Persily & Stewart, 2021). Without a live audience, Noah’s approach leaned heavily on parody and digital satire, using irony and impersonation to highlight threats to democratic trust. By contrast, Jon Stewart’s return in 2024 reintroduced a live studio format and direct engagement with audience reactions, shifting the show’s satire toward meta-commentary on the performative nature of political debates and voter mobilization strategies. Stewart critiqued how campaigns manufacture engagement and how media narratives reinforce electoral spectacle, exposing contradictions in political rhetoric and campaign strategies.

Trump’s presidency, spanning both election cycles, further reshaped the nature of satire, as his rhetoric pushed political comedy into what McClennen (2024) calls “ironic irony”, where satire often blurred with reality due to the extreme nature of his discourse. Additionally, evolving gender dynamics in political coverage became an integral theme in 2024, with Kamala Harris facing double standards in media portrayal and debate performances, reinforcing systemic inequities that satirical shows, including TDS, sought to expose (Brown & Williams Fayne, 2024; Shaw, 2024).

Evidently, satire plays a pivotal role in political discourse, especially in the U.S.. It has been extensively studied for its impact on political engagement (Momen, 2023), its evaluation of presidential candidacy (Smith, 2018; Baumgartner, 2008; O’Connor, 2017), and its influence on political agendas, like in European contexts (Boukes, 2018; Boukes & Hameleers, 2020). Satirical shows challenge traditional journalism by mimicking and subverting its conventions. For instance, The Onion critiques sensationalism and the lack of substantive analysis in election coverage through its parodies (Reilly, 2012). Most studies in this area rely on surveys and interviews to collect and analyze data, focusing on audience engagement and perceptions (Boukes, 2018; Boukes & Hameleers, 2020; Momen, 2023; O’Connor, 2017). This study addresses The Daily Show’s coverage of the 2020 and 2024 elections by applying the MCDA framework to contribute to a deeper understanding of how news satire adapts to changing political landscapes.

2. Materials and Methods

This study analyzes satirical and multimodal discourse, focusing on how The Daily Show constructs political critique through a blend of textual, visual, and performative elements. This study adopts a Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis (MCDA) framework, as outlined by Machin and Mayr (2012), to examine the portrayal of U.S. elections in The Daily Show during the 2020 and 2024 election cycles. By examining the interplay of textual and visual elements, semiotic choices, and ideological framing, this research seeks to uncover how TDS reflects and satirically critiques democratic processes, media practices, and political discourse, and evaluates how multimodal satire functions as a cultural artifact that engages with political narratives. To achieve this, the study focuses on key satirical strategies such as irony, parody, and hyperbole, analyzing how these techniques are employed discursively and visually to challenge political rhetoric. In common with CDA, MCDA views other modes of communication as a means of social construction. Visual communication, as well as language, both shape and are shaped by society. MCDA therefore is not only interested in the visual semiotic choices in themselves, but also in the way that they play a part in the communication of power relations (Machin & Mayr, 2012, p. 10).

The methodology involves semiotic analysis of four episodes of TDS (two from each election year) as seen in

Table 1. Selected Episodes.

Episodes’ Themes/Shows	TDS During 2020 Elections	TDS During 2024 Elections
Episode 1: “Election Debate”	Trump “Stands by” White Supremacists in Off-the-Rails Debate (The Daily Show, 2020)	Jon Stewart Tackles Harris & Trump’s Debate and What This Means for the Election (The Daily Show, 2024a)
Episode 2: “Post-Election Analysis”	The Fight to Overturn the 2020 Election: Somehow Still Going (The Daily Show, 2021)	Jon Stewart On What Went Wrong for Democrat (The Daily Show, 2024b)

, using a combination of visual, linguistic, and semiotic analyses. These episodes were selected based on their relevance to major electoral events, including debates, election results, and post-election commentary, where primary data sources include transcripts and screenshots of the episodes taken from YouTube. The study is structured into three thematic sections: Introductions and Headlines, Election Debates, and Post-Election Analysis. In the Introductions and Headlines, the study examines how The Daily Show frames election-related content in its opening monologues. The Election Debates section focuses on the representation of candidates’ performances and ideological clashes, using transitivity and semiotic choices to reveal underlying narratives. Finally, the Post-Election Analysis investigates voter behavior, media narratives, and political strategies.

The analysis draws on transitivity, semiotic choices, and representational strategies to examine how TDS portrays political events and actors. Transitivity analysis, rooted in Halliday’s framework and expanded by Machin and Mayr (2012), reveals how agency and responsibility are framed, particularly in political and media texts. For instance, the study analyses Trevor Noah’s critique of Trump’s interruptions during the 2020 debates and Jon Stewart’s framing of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump during the 2024 election debates. These instances highlight the linguistic choices that shape meaning and perceptions of power dynamics. The concept of news frames is integral to this study, particularly how TDS satirically adopts and subverts traditional media frames. News frames, as defined by Ledin and Machin (2018), are themes that signal an event’s newsworthiness and guide its coverage, including the key actors and their treatment.

Semiotic analysis examines how textual, visual resources, and choices are used to construct representations of political events and social practices. Drawing on MCDA by Machin and Mayr (2012) key elements include analyzing overlexicalization, suppression, structural oppositions, and ideological framing in language. Visual analysis focuses on elements such as cultural and biological categorization through dress and gestures, symbolic contact through gaze direction, and the positioning of actors in terms of distance and angle. The study also employs representational strategies to analyze how TDS constructs social actors. This includes examining individualization versus collectivization, nomination versus functionalization, and the use of honorifics to convey authority or irony. Machin and Mayr (2012) used Van Dijk’s (1988) term of ideological squaring because representational choices stated by speakers play an important role in affecting people’s ideologies and stance. The analysis explores how pronouns like “us” and “them” establish ideological divides. For instance, Noah’s framing of Trump supporters as “them” versus the progressive audience as “us” reflects the show’s ideological positioning. Similarly, Stewart’s collectivization of Democratic campaign failures in 2024 critiques organizational inefficiencies, while Noah’s individualization of Trump in 2020 emphasizes his role as a disruptor.

3. Results

3.1. Introductions and Headlines of Both Shows

3.1.1. TDS During the Election in 2020

In both episodes of The Daily Show covering the 2020 elections, the episodes begin with the show’s signature introductory music, followed by the host’s script without introducing himself. This omission could be attributed to several factors: the incomplete nature of the episodes available online, the unique circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, or the fact that Trevor Noah was already an established and recognizable figure as the host of the show (see Figure 1).

As shown in Figure 1, the introduction of Episode 1 of the 2020 election exemplifies TDS’s adaptive use of political and multimodal satire to critique democratic dysfunction through a blend of visual, linguistic, and performative satire. The episode titled “Trump ‘Stands by’ White Supremacists in Off-the-Rails Debate” juxtaposes Trump’s rhetoric with chaotic debate footage and employs ironic framing to expose the performative nature of political discourse. The quotation marks around “stands by” signals discursive skepticism towards Trump’s rhetoric, while “off-the-rails debate” frames the event as disorderly and chaotic. Trevor Noah’s central positioning in a medium-close shot individualizes him as the commentator, while his casual hoodie contrasts with traditional news anchor attire, reflecting the informal pandemic-era context. Background elements like the “Black Lives Matter” poster and the Statue of Liberty embed the critique within themes of social justice, and the bold “Votegasm 2020” graphic humorously exaggerates voting’s significance, blending satire with civic engagement. The irony in phrases like “let’s really sit down and talk about what we learned” mocks the lack of substantive debate, reinforced by chaotic clips from the event. Visual semiotics, including red, white, and blue elements symbolizing patriotism, create an ironic contrast between democratic ideals and the debate’s dysfunction. This visually references the branding of both the Democratic and Republican parties, reinforcing the hyperpartisan nature of the debate. This further underscore the tension between the idealized image of American democracy and the disorderly reality unfolding on screen.

The opening of this TDS episode, shown in Figure 2, combines visuals, text, and humor to critique Trump’s post-election behaviour and the actions of his supporters during the 2020 election period. The title, “The Fight to Overturn the 2020 Election: Somehow Still Going”, frames the presidential actions as an active, deliberate, and aggressive challenge to democracy, with “fight” suggesting conflict and determination and “overturn” emphasizing the anti-democratic intent. This is contrasted by the incredulous and informal tone of “Somehow Still Going”, which conveys disbelief, highlighting the absurdity of the persistence of these actions long after the election was settled. Visually, the bold red color is clearly gesturing towards republican complicity. The first image overlays chaotic visuals of crowds storming a building, prominently featuring American flags. Through the juxtaposition of patriotic imagery with violent insurrection, the segment employs ironic inversion, wherein symbols of democracy (American flags) are recontextualized as tools of democratic subversion. This contrast underscores the hypocrisy of Trump’s movement, which claims to defend democracy while actively destabilizing it. Transitivity is reflected in the visual framing of participants—Trump’s supporters are represented as active agents (“fighting to overturn the election”), while the democratic system and institutions are the affected entities under attack. The second image, “TRUMP STILL THINKS HE WON”, isolates the textual message to emphasize Trump as an individual actor. This verbal irony highlights the absurdity of Trump’s refusal to concede, exposing the gap between what is said (Trump believing he won) and what is true (he lost decisively). This use of representation shifts the focus from collective action to Trump’s personal agency and the ideological foundation of his movement. The minimalist design underscores his disconnect from reality while amplifying the satirical tone of the critique. Satire here goes beyond irony—it criticizes political deception, using humor and exaggeration to challenge power structures and expose manipulation. Despite the fact that the red color suggests otherwise, Noah ironically opens with “Donald Jobless Trump”, hyperbolically reframing Trump as both defeated and powerless, through the sarcastic question, “for anyone wondering if Trump is still worshiped by his people, well, this might answer your question”. This frames Trump’s supporters as unwavering agents of blind loyalty, setting up the subsequent clip to illustrate their actions. Together, the visuals, satirical, and discursive strategies of transitivity and representation frames Trump and his supporters as both active disruptors and objects of satire, encouraging viewers to critically evaluate their role in undermining democratic values.

3.1.2. TDS During the 2024 Elections

The opening and Figure 2 of this Daily Show episode on the 2024 presidential debate blends humor, irony, and the visuals, text, sound, and introductory speech together to critique not only the candidates and the debate structure but also the role of the media in amplifying this performative spectacle.

The title, as seen in Figure 3, “The First Presidential Debate” sets the tone for the episode by combining traditional news aesthetics with a satirical edge. The bold, blocky text mimics the gravity of news graphics while the ironic tagline “50% Less Old Man” reduces the debate to a superficial commentary on the candidates’ age and demographics rather than political substance. This parody of media’s oversimplification highlights how political discourse is often trivialized. The blurred patriotic visuals of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump in the background, with red, white, and blue tones, evoke the themes of American democracy, tying the critique to the broader political system while subtly critiquing its performative nature. The traditional news-style music, announcer’s introduction mimic and applause accompanying Stewart’s entry as the host reinforces the theatricality of the media spectacle, further blurring the line between entertainment and political analysis. Stewart’s opening sarcastically refers to the debate as “the second presidential debate” but then humorously clarifies it as “the first presidential debate of this match up”, mocking the cyclical and formulaic nature of these events.

The phrase “the stakes couldn’t be higher” appears to lend gravity to the event, but it is immediately undercut by Stewart’s mockery of the swing states (PaMiNevMiAzGaNc). It is an anacronym of U.S. swing states (battleground states) that are crucial in determining the outcome of the presidential election (Pa = Pennsylvania, Mi = Michigan, Nev = Nevada, Az = Arizona, Ga = Georgia, Nc = North Carolina). This highlights how the electoral process often reduces citizens’ voices to strategic calculations. This is further satirized by his reference to the “neighboring country of NoOneGivesAShitistan”, which humorously critiques the political apathy or disconnection felt by many viewers outside these key states. It serves as a metaphorical exaggeration, reinforcing the notion that voters outside swing states are ignored by political campaigns. This satirical depiction distorts reality to critique systemic flaws, underscoring the imbalance of electoral influence in U.S. democracy. The audience’s laughter in response to these lines underscores the effectiveness of the satirical approach in engaging viewers through humor. The segment’s satirical power is amplified through audience engagement, as laughter reinforces the absurdity of political discourse. TDS critiques not only the political system but also the way the public engages with it—passively consuming the dramatization of elections rather than actively challenging their structural shortcomings (see Figure 4).

In Figure 4, Stewart’s initiates the show by his sharp wit call for the zoom in of the camera. The visual composition of Stewart seated at the iconic Daily Show desk emphasizes his centrality as the anchor figure, reinforcing his authority while maintaining the show’s satirical lens. Behind him, the Capitol dome and a digital map of the United States evoke the symbols of American democracy, tying the discussion to national political discourse. The vibrant blue and red tones in the background—colors associated with both major political parties—create a bipartisan visual frame, subtly critiquing the polarized nature of U.S. politics. The familiar news-desk format satirizes traditional broadcast media, while Stewart’s casual posture and gestures disrupt the formal expectations of a news anchor, signaling the comedic and informal approach toward political analysis. His reintroduction of himself, “My name is Jon Stewart”, reflects the evolving nature of TDS with its rotating hosts, making his presence both familiar and momentarily unique within the broader framework of the show.

Stewart’s opening lines, delivered with mock gravitas—“I will only speak to you in this tone of voice, this close to the camera”—immediately highlight the satirical nature of his critique. The script then transitions to Stewart recounting the election night results, with his phrase “Donald Trump had won the election in a bit of a thumpening” blending humor with sharp commentary. The term “thumpening” caricatures the scale of Trump’s victory, critiquing the Democrats’ loss while emphasizing the exaggerated drama often associated with election coverage. Stewart’s interaction with the audience—acknowledging their reactions, referencing past episodes, and casually introducing guests—fosters a sense of intimacy and relatability, contrasting with the traditional detachment of news anchors. Thus, the visuals and script critique the polarized political landscape, symbolized by the red and blue hues and the focus on the Capitol dome. Stewart’s sarcastic commentary on the Democrats’ loss reflects a broader critique of their strategy and messaging, holding them accountable for their inability to counter Trump’s narrative.

3.2. Election Debate

3.2.1. Election Debate During the 2020 Elections

From the very start, Noah is mocking, parodying, and impersonating the interruptions of both parties in the debate. He begins by inviting the remote audience to “analyze the policy disagreements”. This ironic framing sets the stage for his parody, where he likens the debate to a “fight that you overhear in a booth at Denny’s”, humorously stripping it of its political gravitas and reframing it as a petty and absurd public argument. By performing a fictional exchange—“You got no class”/“You got terrible grades”—Noah exaggerates the personal attacks to emphasize their inappropriate tone for a presidential debate. Noah’s parody further mocks Biden’s insult, calling Trump a “clown”, humorously deconstructing it with, “That’s not fair to Trump… Clowns wear weird makeup, have clothes that are too big, and are deeply sad”. Simpson (2003) distinguishes the direct consequence of satire’s formal design from parody that activates sincerity to remain intact (p. 138). This satirical comparison sincerely reduces Trump to a caricature, highlighting the theatrical nature of his debate performance. Noah further asserts that the “colossal train wreck” was caused by Trump “throwing grenades on the tracks”, a vivid metaphor that captures Trump’s role as the active disruptor. Through these parodic techniques, Noah critiques the debate’s lack of substance, the personalization of attacks, and the performative nature of both candidates.

As captured in the TDS episode (“Stands by” White Supremacists in Off-the-Rails Debate), Noah uses satire, irony, and visual juxtapositions to expose Trump’s disruptive communication style and its broader implications. A visual metaphor image in Figure 5 juxtaposes Trump with an idyllic advertisement scene of a smiling family, using visual metaphor to contrast Trump’s chaos with an idealized vision of peace and stability. The red, white, and blue patriotic framing ties the critique to American democratic ideals, while the word “SETTLE” highlights Trump’s inability to engage calmly and nods to the commodification of political messaging. Trump’s interruption of a fictional commercial—“Why is it.. the mayor of Moscow’s wife gave your son three and a half million dollars?”—and Noah’s response, “Ooh, that guy is relentless”, underline Trump’s derailing tactics, metaphorically reflecting his debate style of dominating discussions with unrelated accusations. Further, Noah’s humour dissects the power dynamics of the debate, presenting Trump as an active disruptor and moderator Chris Wallace as a passive figure. In satirically comparing Wallace to an ineffective WWE referee or an English teacher managing unruly students, Noah portrays him as emblematic of institutional powerlessness in the face of Trump’s relentless interruptions. This critique exposes systemic failures to enforce accountability, a recurring theme in Noah’s analysis.

The episode title itself uses quotation marks to signal skepticism and irony, referencing Trump’s refusal to condemn white supremacy. Noah frames this moment within broader racial and ideological discourses, emphasizing Trump’s passive positioning toward systemic racism. Drawing on Machin and Mayr’s concepts of nomination and functionalization, Noah highlights Trump’s dual role as an individual actor (“Trump” or “the president”) and as a symbol of systemic racial and political divisions. Trump is individualized as the disruptive agent, while the smiling family scene symbolizes collectivized harmony. This dichotomy critiques Trump’s actions as an affront to societal unity. Noah’s use of overlexicalization, with terms like “shitshow” and “dumpster fire”, amplifies the chaotic and theatrical nature of the debate, further illustrating its departure from substantive political discourse.

During the 2020 presidential debate, Trump’s ambiguous directive for the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” (overlexicalization) instead of explicitly condemning white supremacists ignited the right-wing extremists. The second image in Figure 5 features Noah alongside an oversized floating head of Trump, caricaturing him as an omnipresent, dominating figure in political discourse. Noah’s animated facial expressions contrasted with Trump’s stern demeanor, emphasizing the absurdity of his evasive response to the critical question of condemning white supremacy. Patriotic symbols like the American flag in the background tied the critique to national ideals, while the Statue of Liberty holding a Black Lives Matter sign juxtaposed the principles of equality and justice with Trump’s controversial rhetoric.

Noah ironically critiques Trump’s hesitation to condemn white supremacists, remarking, “No president should ever have to be pressured this hard into condemning white supremacists”. Through parody, he mocks Trump’s performative approach to accountability with the exaggerated scenario: “What, I’m supposed to apologize for tailgating at your dad’s funeral? Fine, I’m sorry”. This comparison underscores the insincerity in Trump’s response, portraying it as dismissive and self-serving. Noah satirically imagines Trump demanding royalties for the slogan—“Nobody should be advocating the supremacy of the white man without giving Donny his cut”—critiquing Trump’s prioritization of personal gain over ethical responsibility. In his impersonations of Trump, Noah mimics his speech patterns, exaggerated hand gestures, and defensive postures. For example, Noah amplifies Trump’s halting pauses and dismissive gestures, exaggerating these traits to ridicule, and critiques Trump’s reliance on spectacle over substance.

3.2.2. Election Debate During the 2024 Elections

This segment of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart critiques the 2024 election debates and U.S. political system using visual, verbal, and performative satire. The satirical map “NoOneGivesAShitistan” and acronym “PaMiNevMiAzGaNc” mock the hyperfocus on battleground states, highlighting systemic flaws in the democratic process through Machin and Mayr’s concept of individualization versus collectivization. Stewart’s sarcastic line, “As the rest of us watch with great interest from the neighbouring country of NoOneGivesAShitistan”, critiques the exclusionary nature of U.S. elections. His absurd metaphor about the race being “as tight as a teenage boy’s pants during a Sydney Sweeney film festival” mocks media sensationalism, revealing ideological framings of elections as spectacle. Stewart’s deadpan delivery and exaggerated reactions, such as mock vomiting at Dick Cheney endorsing Kamala Harris, underscore the absurdity of political dynamics and alliances, blending humor with critical commentary.

In Figure 6, the juxtaposition of the images of Trump and Harris with Stewart’s body language and facial expressions reinforces their contrasting portrayals. Trump is depicted with a smirking, self-assured expression in a static, professional frame, symbolizing his arrogance and detachment from reality. Through overlexicalization, Stewart mimics Trump’s gestures in an exaggerated manner, such as clasping his hands and raising his eyebrows in mock surprise, amplifying the absurdity of Trump’s responses. Stewart’s comment, “They’re eating dogs in Springfield?” paired with exaggerated expressions, satirizes the incoherence and hyperbole in Trump’s rhetoric.

In the following Figure 7, in contrast, Harris is portrayed with calm professionalism, as Stewart’s subdued gestures, like folding his hands or leaning forward, emphasize her competence. This visual dynamic individualizes Harris as measured and prepared, aligning with Fairclough’s (2015) focus on power in discourse and framing narratives.

Stewart’s commentary employs parody and intertextual humour to critique the candidates’ rhetoric. Figure 7 shows his mock instructions to Trump, “If Kamala says something that makes you angry, you just go…” accompanied by exaggerated facial expressions, satirizes Trump’s lack of substantive responses, reducing his debate strategy to non-verbal deflections. This critique ties into the concept of functionalism, where Trump’s actions are stripped of meaning and presented as performative rather than substantive. similarly, Stewart’s mock response to Harris’s economic plan—“Holy shit! We’re all millionaires!”—parodies the exaggerated promises often made during political debates, highlighting the unrealistic expectations set by candidates. This use of hyperbole critiques not only Harris’s rhetoric but also the broader political practice of overselling policies without addressing their feasibility. Stewart’s satire peaks when addressing Trump’s hyperbolic claims about immigrants eating pets in Springfield. By repeating and exaggerating Trump’s words, Stewart emphasizes their absurdity, aligning with the concept of overlexicalization to expose the ideological underpinnings of Trump’s fearmongering. His line, “Remember to leash your dogs, or your immigrant neighbours might eat them”, mocks the xenophobic undertones of Trump’s narrative, using humour to dismantle its credibility. The segment critiques the power dynamics and ideological framing within the debate. Stewart’s commentary, “America is back! Nobody’s answering any [bleep] questions!” highlights how debates often devolve into theatrical performances rather than platforms for meaningful discourse. This aligns with Fairclough’s concept of ideological framing, where political rhetoric is critiqued for its role in perpetuating systemic inequalities and distractions. Stewart’s critique of Harris, though less biting, also points to the performative nature of her responses, and exposes the unrealistic expectations set by candidates.

3.3. Post-Election SATIRE

3.3.1. Post-Election Satire During the 2020 Elections

This section addresses the “post-election satire” episodes of TDS As seen in Figure 8, this segment of TDS, hosted by Trevor Noah, delivers a sharp satirical analysis of themes surrounding the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and Trump’s persistent election denial. The golden Trump statue, with exaggerated features and props like flip-flops and a magic wand, acts as a visual metaphor for political absurdity, critiquing idolatry and performative conservative politics, aligning with Machin and Mayr’s concept of symbolic attributes.

Figure 8 pertains to Noah’s hyperbolic commentary, including the quip, “It looks like King Midas dry humped a Bob’s Big Boy”, mocks the statue’s gaudy symbolism, while a parody conversation between Eric Trump and the statue deconstructs the performative nature of the Trump family’s public personas. Further, Noah critiques the CPAC crowd’s groupthink and Trump’s rhetoric through intertextual humour, such as comparing CPAC’s alternate reality to “WandaVision”, echoing ideological distortion. The critique extends to Trump’s financial exploitation of his base, with Noah mimicking Trump’s mannerisms to expose recurring donation traps and the contradictions in his populist rhetoric. Lines like, “His last act as President was to rob his own supporters”, employ hyperbolic humour to highlight the ethical implications, reflecting Fairclough’s (1989, 2015) notion of ideological framing and naturalization of irrational loyalty. Through parody, exaggeration, and intertextuality, Noah dissects the spectacle of CPAC and Trump’s political theatrics while inviting collective critique through canned laughter, which is a relevant example of how the pandemic-era-without-live-stream influenced the show. He further parodies Melania saying: “I’m going pee pee now. Credit card comes with me, Donald”. This individualization of Melania is shown actively protecting herself from Trump’s schemes, contrasting with the collectivized portrayal of his supporters as a blindly loyal group. Noah’s rhetorical question, “How far does he have to go for these guys to stop believing in him?” Ironically critiques the normalization of ideological allegiance, reflecting Fairclough’s concept of naturalization. This aligns with the concept of collectivization, where the supporters are depicted as a unified group blindly following Trump, contrasted with the individualized portrayal of Melania’s interests. Further, by Mimicking Trump’s hesitant tone and adopting exaggerated speech—“Well, sure, I missed that checkbox that let Trump take my nose”—Noah emphasizes their blind faith, aligning with Machin and Mayr’s concept of functionalization by assigning roles to expose power dynamics. Through changes in attire and integration of clips from pro-regime media across episodes, Noah employs Fairclough’s (2015) concept of interdiscursivity, weaving different contexts into a cohesive, ongoing critique. This approach underscores the interconnectedness of themes, maintaining consistency in visual style and tone while spotlighting Trump’s exploitation and his supporters’ loyalty.

3.3.2. Post-Election Satire During the 2024 Elections

Stewart’s segment critiques the Democratic Party’s inefficient campaign spending and strategies after the 2024 election, focusing their reliance on intrusive modern outreach methods and repetitive door-to-door canvassing. Using humour, sarcasm, and visual satire, Stewart dissects the disconnect between Democratic leadership and grassroots execution. Stewart employs nomination and functionalization (Machin & Mayr, 2012) to critique abstract campaign practices like “polling”, “consultants”, and “texting”, framing them as symbolic of ineffective strategies. His quip, “How the [BLEEP] did they just text me? I’m in the tub”, humorously captures the absurdity and invasiveness of campaign texts. The bleeped expletive amplifies his frustration while adhering to broadcast norms. Stewart’s reference to “a billion dollars” and “ground game” highlights overlexicalization, mocking the Democrats’ overcomplicated efforts compared to Republican simplicity.

The accompanying image (Figure 9) juxtaposes Stewart’s expressive body language with a staged political event featuring a symbolic “check” for campaign funding. Stewart’s raised finger and frustrated expression contrast with the patriotic imagery of red and white stripes in the backdrop, emphasizing the clash between national ideals and political inefficiencies. This visual framing critiques the misallocation of campaign resources, symbolized by excessive spending with minimal impact.

Stewart further ridicules repetitive canvassing, stating, “If there’s one thing people love more than someone appearing randomly at their door once, it’s that same [BLEEP] person coming back two or three times”. This humour underscores the invasive nature of overzealous tactics and the frustration of voters subjected to them. By contrasting the Democrats’ outdated methods with Republicans’ simpler, more targeted approaches, Stewart frames the Democratic Party as out of touch with public sentiment. The second image, depicting a mock movie poster titled “Ocean’s 74 Million”, reframes Trump’s massive voter base as part of a heist and fraud. The red and black color scheme evokes drama and danger, mirroring Hollywood-style capers. Stewart’s tone matches the poster’s theatricality, as he wryly declares, “It turns out the election was stolen, by more people voting for Donald Trump”. This statement mocks the Republican narrative of election fraud by ironically framing high voter turnout as the “theft” of the election. Stewart’s body language, tone, and visual aids work cohesively to critique the failures of both political parties. In the first image, his pointing gesture and open mouth signal incredulity and anger, symbolizing the futility of Democrats’ strategies. The contrast between his frustration and the peaceful, hopeful poster highlights the perceived emptiness of symbolic gestures when faced with electoral realities.

4. Discussion

This study examined The Daily Show’s coverage of the 2020 and 2024 U.S. elections under Trevor Noah and Jon Stewart, analyzing themes of Introductions and Headlines, Election Debates, and Post-Election Analysis. The findings highlight significant shifts in satirical and multimodal strategies, discourse and focus, shaped by contextual factors, hosting styles, and audience dynamics, underscoring the adaptability of The Daily Show as a critical lens on democratic processes. In the Introductions and Headlines, Noah’s 2020 introductions reflected the intimacy of his home-based format during the COVID-19 pandemic. His casual attire and symbolic background elements like a “Black Lives Matter” poster resonated with the era’s focus on social justice and relatability. In contrast, Stewart’s 2024 return brought a revival of live studio settings, formal attire, and audience reactions, emphasizing theatricality and a return to pre-pandemic norms. Stylistically, Noah leaned on parody and irony, using exaggerated metaphors like likening debates to a “fight at Denny’s” to critique political absurdities. Noah’s analysis was delivered from his home, relying on direct camera address instead of engaging with a live audience. His satire was shaped by a more intimate, monologue-driven style, which increased verbal irony and personal humor (e.g., exaggerated metaphors and parodies like the debate being a “fight at Denny’s”). Stewart, however, adopted meta-satire, critiquing not only events but also media narratives, as exemplified by his quip about “NoOneGivesAShitistan”, mocking the media’s fixation on swing states. The results align with the idea that TDS employs various forms of satire, but mostly irony, parody, and exaggeration, to critique and satirize individuals or subjects (Rahma et al., 2023, p. 239), and the genre hybridity of the show (Baym, 2005), reflecting various entertaining, informative, and critical roles of the hosts (Droog, 2023).

In the Election Debates episodes, Noah’s 2020 debate coverage relied on parody and impersonation, using re-enactments to critique the chaos and performativity of the candidates and faking conversations (as seen in Maslo’s (2019) study) where such shows fake conversations parodying prominent figures as Trump. For instance, his exaggerated exchange—“You got no class” underscored the lack of substance in political discourse. Stewart’s 2024 analysis, by contrast, emphasized systemic critiques, deconstructing debates as media spectacles rather than meaningful exchanges. His satirical compression of battleground states into acronyms like “PaMiNevMiAzGaNc” mocked reductive political strategies. Visually, Noah’s home setup limited his tools to static graphics, while Stewart’s studio setting enabled dynamic visuals like a satirical map, enhancing his systemic critique. The use of juxtaposed images, memes, and exaggerated visuals (e.g., Trump’s floating oversized head, comparison of debates to a train wreck) replaced live comedic exchanges. The lack of an audience led Noah to rely more on graphic-based satire, which compensated for the absence of real-time crowd engagement. Stewart’s use of spontaneous audience reactions, such as applause, and real-time crowd engagement, allowed for more organic satire, where audience participation actively shaped the humor. Stewart’s return to a live studio audience allowed for interactive satire, with real-time reactions such as mock vomiting, sarcastic applause, and audience laughter reinforcing comedic cues. This reintroduced performative satire as a dominant strategy.

In the Post-Election Analysis category, Noah’s 2020 post-election coverage focused on the immediacy of events like Trump’s refusal to concede and the Capitol Insurrection. His humour juxtaposed Trump’s rhetoric with the chaos it inspired, using sharp visual satire, such as the golden Trump statue at CPAC, to critique the idolatry surrounding Trump. Stewart’s 2024 post-election analysis took a broader, systemic view, critiquing Democratic inefficiencies and Republican mobilization. His metaphor of the Democrats’ “ground game” as overfunded yet ineffective contrasted sharply with Trump’s strategic simplicity. Stewart’s theatrical satire, such as mock vomiting in response to Dick Cheney’s endorsement of Kamala Harris, blended humour with systemic critique, highlighting ideological divides and media complicity. Noah’s reliance on parody, impersonation, and emotional humour reflected his focus on social justice issues and relatability, shaped by the pandemic and the Black Lives Matter movement. Stewart’s return emphasized structural critiques and meta-satire, targeting the performative nature of political and individual actors and the systems enabling them. These shifts highlight the evolving role of satire in a polarized media landscape. Thus, the evolution of TDS between 2020 and 2024 illustrates its ability to adapt to changing political contexts and audience expectations. While Noah’s tenure captured the emotional immediacy of 2020’s crises, Stewart’s 2024 episodes offered reflective, systemic critiques of American democracy. Together, their approaches demonstrate the enduring relevance of satire in navigating the complexities of modern political discourse, blending humour and visuals with critical commentary to engage audiences meaningfully.

5. Conclusions

This study analyzed The Daily Show’s coverage of the 2020 and 2024 U.S. elections under Trevor Noah and Jon Stewart, highlighting shifts in satirical and multimodal strategies influenced by contextual factors, hosting styles, and audience engagement. The findings demonstrate that The Daily Show adapts its satire to the sociopolitical climate, using irony, parody, and hyperbole to critique political discourse, electoral processes, and media narratives. Noah’s 2020 approach, shaped by the constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasized digital satire, social justice themes, and impersonation, compensating for the absence of a live audience through visual exaggerations and direct-to-camera delivery. In contrast, Stewart’s 2024 return reintroduced performative satire, leveraging a live audience and interactive elements to enhance systemic critique, exposing not only political absurdities but also media complicity in shaping electoral spectacle. These findings contribute to the study of political satire and media discourse by demonstrating how satirical news evolves in response to shifting political and media landscapes. The research reinforces the idea that satire serves both as entertainment and as a form of mediated political critique, reflecting broader cultural and ideological tensions. By applying Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis (MCDA), the study highlights the intricate interplay between textual, visual, and performative elements in constructing political critique, further emphasizing The Daily Show’s role as a hybrid media format that challenges conventional journalism. Additionally, the study expands on existing scholarship on genre hybridity (Nicolaï & Maeseele, 2024; Baym, 2005) and the critical functions of satire (Droog, 2023), positioning The Daily Show as a dynamic site of ideological negotiation and audience engagement. Future research should explore how TDS and other satirical programs adapt their content for digital and social media platforms, where short-form videos, memes, and interactive commentary are increasingly shaping political satire. Additionally, comparative analyses of global satirical news formats could provide insights into how different sociopolitical contexts influence the function and reception of satire beyond Western media landscapes. Longitudinal studies on audience reception would further contribute to understanding how satire shapes public perceptions of politics and media over time, particularly in relation to trust in democratic institutions. Moreover, integrating computational methods such as sentiment analysis and big data analytics could offer a more comprehensive view of satire’s impact on public discourse by examining audience engagement across multiple platforms. These avenues of research would deepen our understanding of satire’s evolving role in contemporary political communication.