As another election season progresses, very few people are talking about what everybody was talking about during the last election season: young voters.

Remember 2004: Michael Moore and the “Vote for Change” tour, among others, were traversing the country predicting a revolution, led by a newly energized college-age electorate. Well, since Kerry lost, the conventional mainstream media said young voters failed to turnout and, thus, the Great Democratic Hope failed them once again. End of story — no need for follow-up.

This reflection emerges as I listen to the response to a recent study on the impact of “The Daily Show” on young viewers. Richard Morin of The Washington Post writes in a column entitled “Jon Stewart, Enemy of Democracy?“:

This is not funny: Jon Stewart and his hit Comedy Central cable show may be poisoning democracy.

Two political scientists found that young people who watch Stewart’s faux news program, “The Daily Show,” develop cynical views about politics and politicians that could lead them to just say no to voting.

Full disclosure here: I’m a big fan of “The Daily Show.” But the dissing of the show is not what really bothers me. I’m an even bigger fan of satire and its role as a popular and political force.

Well, it didn’t take too much research to find out that Morin completely distorts the findings of Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan Morris, the two East Carolina University researchers that conducted the study under question. What the study actually found — according to Jimmy Ryals of The Daily Reflector, a North Carolina newspaper, who interviews the researchers — was that “viewers of ‘The Daily Show’ tend to be cynical about individual candidates, the electoral process and the media” and that “Daily Show viewers, primarily young adults in their late teens and early 20s, tend to trust their own knowledge of politics.”

In my mind, that’s a remarkably positive impact. The cynicism toward candidates, the electoral process and the media is well-deserved — and a healthy skepticism, when not turned into apathy, is the first step to critically engaged thinking. And, for that matter, we should applaud youth that have confidence enough to trust their own political instincts.

The researchers make no claim on whether this will lead to less participation by young voters in future elections. In fact, while they admit a potential negative impact, they see a lot of reason for a positive interpretation:

“There is something going on with regard to how viewers see candidates and how they see the process as a whole … whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing, we don’t know,” Morris said. “But ‘The Daily Show’ is not a benign entity out there just entertaining.”

How does cynicism affect “Daily Show” viewers’ political behaviors? Morris and Baumgartner aren’t sure. Alienation could drive the show’s watchers away from polls during election, they said. Discontent could also spawn greater involvement.

Another possibility: As “Daily Show” viewers grow more confident in political knowledge ? a byproduct of “getting” Stewart’s humor ? they could become more active voters, Baumgartner said.

“Participation breeds more participation and informed participation” he said. “So that by itself would be a net positive.”

The study, in this regard, gives us much for which to be hopeful. But the embedded attitudes of Morin and others who want to believe a simple “truth” both about youth and about satirical humor can become self-fulfilling prophesies.

Oh, by the way, all those mainstream media reports about the low turnout among young voters in 2004 were just plain wrong. A Harvard University study completed last year debunked all that conventional wisdom. It was, in fact, a record year for youth electoral participation.

Let’s talk about that.