WASHINGTON — What? A satirical news show has as much substance as real network news?

That was the finding that made headlines for Julia R. Fox, an assistant professor of telecommunications at Indiana University who has been studying networks' election coverage for years.

Fox analyzed how the networks and Comedy Central's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" covered the 2004 national political conventions and the first presidential debate. The shows were judged on how much time was devoted to things like campaign issues and candidate qualifications versus focusing on the "horse race" and "hoopla" aspect of elections. Fox discussed her findings with Gannett News Service.

Q. What prompted you to do this study?

A. I'd been fascinated by some national survey data I had seen coming out of the Pew Center. I've been studying network coverage of the elections since 1988, which for decades had been the primary source of news for most Americans. But what I saw cropping up in their data was comedy shows like "The Daily Show" becoming an increasingly important source of political information for young voters, age 18 to 30. In 2004, the same percentage of voters in that age group said they relied primarily on shows like "The Daily Show" as said they relied on the network newscasts for their political information.

Even more interesting, if you compare that to 2000, the percentage of the age group that said they relied on shows like "The Daily Show" doubled from about 10 to 20 percent, whereas the percentage in that group that said they relied on the networks was cut in half, from about 40 (percent) to 20 percent. ...

It suggests that these voters are literally leaving the networks for shows like "The Daily Show."

Q. What did you find?

A. We found as expected, and consistent with previous studies, that the networks were more hype than substance in their coverage. And consistent with Jon Stewart's insistence that he is a comedian, not a journalist, "The Daily Show" is more humorous than substance. But when we compared the two sources together, we found the same amount of substance in "The Daily Show" coverage as in the network coverage.

Q. Did the results surprise you?

A. The point of doing it was that it might surprise people. I wasn't surprised because, as I said, I've done studies of the network from '88 to 2000 and it's been primarily hype rather than substance. So it wasn't that surprising to me. I know that a lot of people have expressed dismay and concern over the growing importance of "The Daily Show" as a source of news. So some of them might be surprised to see it's just as substantive, according to the way we coded.

Q. Is it that "The Daily Show" is unusually substantive or that network news isn't substantive enough?

A. It's a little of both. "The Daily Show" has certainly more substance than you would expect in a comedy show. But it's not all. So this is not an endorsement that "The Daily Show" is a good primary source of news. It's more an indictment of the network news that they're no more substantive in their coverage than "The Daily Show."

Q. What could networks do to make their coverage more substantive?

A. Less horse race (coverage). ... I'm not saying that there's no place for horse race or no news value in horse race. But it shouldn't be the primary emphasis.

Q. What tips do you have for people who want to be informed about the candidates and issues in the Nov. 7 elections?

A. The great thing is there are so many sources out there and it can be a little overwhelming. I prefer to get a paper. ... There's Web sites from newspapers and networks. There are all kinds of information out there. I don't think anyone can claim it wasn't available to them.

Q. Have you heard from the networks or from "The Daily Show" about your study?

A. CBS' radio network interviewed me and CBS also put something on its Public Eye Web site. Nothing from ABC or NBC. "The Daily Show" has not contacted me personally, although the producers and the corporate office have requested copies of the study from our media relations department.

I met Jane Pauley last week. She was inducted into the Indiana Broadcasters Hall of Fame. When I mentioned the study, she kind of lit up and said, "My kids have been quoting this study to me." She said, "They're going to be so excited that I met you." Which of course is hilarious because I'm the one who was thrilled to have met Jane Pauley. It's gotten quite a bit of attention. I think it really struck a chord. Most of the response I'm getting is from people who say, "If anything, I think 'The Daily Show' is more substantive than the network news."