Political satire is an elusive hybrid genre that through its evolution over the past two decades has gained both media and scholarly interest. Inspired by American TV shows like Last Week Tonight, a new wave of more journalistic news satire has spread across the world. Studies have scrutinized its contents and effects, but the production side has remained largely uncovered. This study applies the concepts of genre and boundary work to analyze how advocates of this practice relate themselves to news journalism and previous satire. Based on qualitative interviews with 16 key production team members of four topical satire programs, we investigate how Nordic news satirists interpret their aims and work routines. We argue that both Finnish and Swedish news satirists embrace some of the traditional values of journalism such as striving for factuality, political relevance, and monitoring the powerful while they simultaneously aim for more emotional, opinionated, and exaggerated expression than in regular news reporting. The implications of this hybrid, “neomodern” ethos are examined.

Classic agenda setting and news framing research focuses on traditional media actors: journalists, political figures, professional communicators. However, the personalization of politics and journalism, as well as the rise of social media, is creating new spaces for other actors, like comedians. In the separation of vertical media (media which are still aiming for a wide audience with content of general relevance) and horizontal media (more specific media actors building a community around the content they produce), comedians can be considered actors in horizontal media, who help provide the community agenda. This study compares how comedians in horizontal media frame news and current affairs with how journalists in vertical media frame similar news. The study is performed via a quantitative content analysis of Swedish political comedy and traditional Swedish news coverage, with a focus on the emerging podcast medium. It shows that the comedic framing is dramatically more personal and emotional. It is also more thematic and more often on a societal level, while the journalistic news framing is more episodic and on an individual level. The comedic framing is also more focused on issues of political figures and processes, more negative, and more inclusive of different types of societal actors when compared to the news reporting of vertical media.

Through the advent of social media, news achieves a life of its own online. The media organisations partly lose control over the diffusion process, and simultaneously individuals gain power over the process, and become opinion leaders for others. This study focusses on news sharers and news shared (or rather, interacted), and has three RQ:s: 1) What characterises the people who share news in social media, 2) Have the characteristics of interacted news changed over time? and 3) Are there differences between news content interacted by ordinary people and news highlighted by media organisations? Two different studies have been conducted: A representative survey and a quantitative content analysis. The main results are that the opinion leaders differ from the majority by being younger, with a greater political interest, single and more digital in their general lifestyle, both concerning news consumption and other aspects. The content analysis shows that the most interacted news on social media follow the traditional news values rather well, with a few exceptions. Most apparent is that interacted news is more positive over time and compared to print front-page news. Accidents and crime dominate print front-pages, while politics is more prominent in interacted news.

In the high-choice media landscape, satire has the potential to help news and politics break through information apathy barriers and reinvigorate democratic debate. While scholarly attention to the genre of satire has increased, interest in satirists themselves has been sparse. Using a theory of non-deliberative forms of public discourse and the idea of role conceptions, this study presents an analysis of interviews with Swedish satirists working in broadcasting media. Results showed that being Eye-openers and Questioners – meaning providing alternative perspectives and problematizing societal norms – were the primary contributions of satire, according to satirists. There were differing roles to take on when it came to social bonding and solidarity: Unifier, where the aim was to be bridge-building in a polarized debate, and Divider, where the main focus was to inspire critical thinking and foster independence from consensus. The role elements Reporter, Explainer and Solver were also introduced and discussed.

Humour has a unique way of delineating social boundaries, and comedy can function as a double-edged sword; it can strengthen bonds and bring people together, or divide through provocation and violation of social norms. As a consequence, humour controversies are telling events that contain the possibility of highlighting cultural and political sensibilities – even more in the current political landscape, with increasing media fragmentation. This study analysed four humour functions through the theoretical lens of media framing, via three cases of humorous content that caused controversies in the Swedish news media. These cases were one divisive radio roast of a politician, one TV satire segment that was received as racist, and one audio podcast with young women who challenged a Swedish political consensus climate. Framing is the power of media to select and highlight certain aspects of issues, and by extension, shape public opinion. By subjecting the media coverage of these three controversies to a qualitative content analysis, the framing was examined and discussed in the light of four humour functions: identification, clarification, enforcement, and differentiation (Meyer 2000). Furthermore, the study examined the media context and the role it played in the framing of the controversies. One main finding was that the most uniting humour function of identification could be transformed into the most dividing humour function of differentiation through a shift in media context.

Comedy can hold political actors accountable, for instance through satire. But what kind of moral negotiation concerns comedians? Utilizing an understanding of accountability as a dynamic of interaction between media actors and the values of their audience, this study explores the concept of comedy accountability, combining qualitative interviews with case study analysis. Five ethical values central to comedy accountability are proposed: truth-telling, freedom of speech, order and cohesion, human dignity and equality, and nonmaleficence. Results show the values to be highly present both in media commentary and in the claims of comedians, with an emphasis on freedom of speech and nonmaleficence for defenders of controversial comedy, and an emphasis on human dignity and equality and nonmaleficence for protesters of controversial comedy. The negotiation of these values happens predominantly within the market frame of accountability, with defenders also using legal-regulatory and professional responsibility arguments while protesters use public responsibility arguments.