June 27 (Bloomberg) -- As if in answer to the unavoidable question, ``Do college professors have way, way, way too much time on their hands?,'' a pair of political scientists from East Carolina University released the results last week of their 18- month study of the influence that Jon Stewart, the TV comedian, has on U.S. democracy.

The report's conclusions about the effect of Stewart and his Comedy Central ``Daily Show'': not good. Give these people tenure.

In support of their findings and at the risk of self- parody, Professors Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan S. Morris unpack from their scholarly kitbag all the tools of social science. They produce footnotes, appendices and regression analyses plus page after page of tables and charts that would confuse Stephen Hawking.

The effect on the lay reader is at first surprising and finally disorienting, like watching someone use a telephone pole to swat a mosquito.

Still, the report deserves a hearing. It may even make a valuable contribution to U.S. politics, if only because it might persuade some viewers, at long last, to stop paying attention to Jon Stewart -- an outcome that becomes increasingly urgent as the 2008 elections approach.

Jerry and Jon

Do you doubt the urgency? Then think back to Stewart's first brief foray into seriousness, shortly before the 2004 election, when he appeared on the now-defunct CNN chat-'n-hiss show ``Crossfire'' and sandbagged the hosts with the accusation that they were ``hurting the country.''

(One of the hosts, I suppose I should declare, was Tucker Carlson, whom I worked with at the Weekly Standard magazine for several years in the 1990s.)

Anyone who has ever seen Jerry Lewis go weepy in the final hours of a charity telethon knows the excruciating discomfort that comes from watching a professional comedian grow suddenly serious.

``Come on,'' Carlson pleaded to Stewart. ``Be funny.''

``No, no,'' said Stewart. ``I'm here to confront you, because we need help from the media and they're hurting us.''

By ``we,'' needless to say, Stewart was referring to himself, the people -- the American people, for whom he apparently acts as surrogate.

``What you do is not honest,'' Stewart went on. ``What you do is partisan hackery.''

Soft Ball

Confronted with what sounded like a serious accusation, Carlson responded seriously by quoting a string of softball questions Stewart had recently asked Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry in a ``Daily Show'' interview. Stewart's questions to Kerry sounded, coincidentally, like the work of a partisan hack.

But Stewart bobbed. ``You're on CNN,'' he told Carlson. ``The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls.'' In other words: I'm not supposed to be taken seriously.

Except when he demands it. The on-again-off-again comic got to have it both ways. When he lectured the partisan talk-show hosts, we were supposed to take him seriously; when he played patty-cake with a presidential candidate on his own talk show, we weren't.

Stewart's easy moralizing on ``Crossfire'' brought him renewed admiration as a social critic from his fans. There are lots of these, apparently. Baumgartner and Morris cite data from the Pew Research Center that show almost half of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 watch the ``Daily Show'' at least occasionally.

Averse to `Hard News'

This is also the age group that is most averse to consuming ``hard news'' from newspapers, magazines or TV. Only one in four of Stewart's regular viewers report following hard news closely, while, in 2004, more than half said they got some information about the campaign from Stewart.

Astonishingly, in 2004, some commentators thought this was good news: at least the kiddies were getting information from somewhere! Bill Moyers actually said, ``You can't understand American politics without the ```Daily Show'.'' It's not just candidates who talk baloney in election years.

Now Baumgartner and Morris come to confirm what should be obvious, even to Bill Moyers: This isn't good news at all.

``Jon Stewart,'' they write, ``may have a unique effect on young viewers.'' With a barrage of jokes that require almost no contextual knowledge to understand, he flatters his viewers' sense of superiority even as he makes them more cynical -- and cynical not just about individual politicians but about the processes and possibilities of self-government.

Breeds Cynicism

Newspaper readers, who are much better informed, also show a slight increase in cynicism, the researchers found, but they ``do not display cynicism toward the system in the same manner as watchers of the `Daily Show.'''

Meanwhile, despite their lack of knowledge, ``Daily Show'' viewers ``reported increased confidence in their ability to understand the complicated world of politics.'' Stewart is raising their self-esteem at the same time he makes them dumber.

Now, this is a familiar phenomenon in the contemporary U.S. -- rising ignorance accompanied by rising self-regard. We can't blame Stewart for it all by himself, much as I might like to. But the study does raise the question: Who's hurting the country now?

Stewart himself, needless to say, will have a ready answer to any such criticism. What do you expect, he might say, from a comedy show? Stop taking me so seriously.

Until the next time he wants us to.

(Andrew Ferguson is a Bloomberg News columnist. In 1992, he wrote speeches for President George H.W. Bush. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Andrew Ferguson in Washington at aferguson62@yahoo.com.

Last Updated: June 27, 2006 00:06 EDT