Political parody, which is entitled to free speech protection under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, aims at criticizing politicians' policies and ideas with humor. As such, political parodies represent a serious threat to a politician's brand image and reputation. Despite their prevalence in political life and debates, the relative persuasive effects of political parodies based on their communication source (user-generated parody [UGP] vs. media-generated parody [MGP]) have been underexplored. To fill this gap, we developed two studies. The first study involved content analysis of more than 330 parody videos posted on YouTube between 2012 and April 2019 in France. Our findings, in Study 1, showed that MGP led to fewer likes and a more negative attitude toward the parody than UGP. The second study, based on controlled experiment, provided evidence through mediation; compared to UGP, MGP led to more negative attitudes toward the parody and less perceived influence of the parody because of a higher perception of the source's intention to manipulate. This mediating effect was significant only when individuals were highly skeptical of traditional media. These findings add to current theories of political parody, free speech and user-generated content and offer actionable insights to practitioners.