This book brings together a collection of scholars whose work is leading the field of political entertainment studies, and yet it crosses methodological divides to do so, with quantitative and critical/cultural perspectives both represented. Indeed, each author worked as a part of a pair, addressing a similar topic as a colleague from across the divide. The result is a series of essays that add to and move beyond the state of political entertainment research—not only in content, but also in approach—by challenging readers to expand their thinking on these topics outside of the regular strictures.

It begins with direct discussion of methodological divides in the field, as Michael Delli Carpini and Jeffrey P. Jones offer an essay, response, and further response. Following this initial, explicit tackling of methodology and what is at stake, Geoffrey Baym and Lindsay Hoffman each examine partisan language and interviews in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report, respectively; Lauren Feldman and Paul Brewer examine satirical treatments of science; Amber Day and Heather LaMarre address the importance of Stephen Colbert's Super PAC; Dannagal G. Young and Roderick Hart discuss The Daily Show's treatment of political participation, citizenship, and social protest; and finally, Megan Hill and R. Lance Holbert each wrestle with developing a normative approach to political satire. Read what scholars think!