Shattering populists' rhetoric with satire at elections times: The effect of humorously holding populists accountable for their lack of solutions

Abstract

The popularity of populist parties has increased worldwide, and disproportionate media attention for these parties arguably fueled their success. We empirically test our theoretical argument that political satire-with its humor, focus on internal contradictions, and lack of journalistic principles regarding objectivity and facticity-may be an effective antidote to populism's success. Using a representative panel survey that functions as a natural experiment in the context of the Netherlands, we show that consumption of the satire show Zondag met Lubach (ZML) indeed lowered support for a right-wing populist party (PVV), its leader (Wilders), and the perceived capability of this party. Specifically, this study shows how satirically revealing the “weak spot” of populism (i.e., lacking concrete treatment recommendations) lowers populist support particularly among citizens already inclined to vote for populist parties. These findings have important democratic implications as they reveal that satire can have a real-life impact on the political decisions that voters make.