<Emphasis Type="Italic">The Daily Show with Jon Stewart</Emphasis> and Audience Attitude Change During the 2004 Party Conventions

The intention of this analysis is to examine The Daily Show with Jon Stewart’s coverage of politics and assess the persuasive power of the program’s unique brand of humor. Evidence from a content analysis of The Daily Show’s “Indecision 2004” coverage of the Democratic and Republican Party Conventions shows the program’s humor was much harsher during the Republican Convention than it was during the Democratic Convention. While the humor in both conventions was heavily based on self-deprecation and the exploitation of conventional political stereotypes, the ridicule of Republicans focused much more on policy and character flaws. Humor pointed toward Democrats, on the other hand, tended to focus more on innocuous physical attributes. Analysis of panel data collected by the National Annenberg Election Survey during the 2004 national party conventions shows that exposure to The Daily Show’s convention coverage was associated with increased negativity toward President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. These relationships remain significant even when controlling for partisan identification and ideology. Attitudes toward the Democratic ticket, John Kerry and John Edwards remained consistent.     

Choice of Law in Tort—Blending in with the Landscape of the Conflict of Laws?

The reformed choice of law in tort rules contained in the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 have proved a source of great controversy. This piece attempts to show that there are wider concerns fuelled by the Act. It seeks to demonstrate that one can not reform one area of the Conflict of Laws (such as choice of law in tort) in isolation from other areas (such as jurisdiction in tortious matters and choice of law in contract) and to illustrate the unsatisfactory state that the statutory reforms have had on these other areas. The analysis of the problems generated by the Act may be used as a model for a far more fundamental proposition: namely that the tendency to regard choice of law and jurisdiction as separate areas throughout the Conflict of Laws, rather than as combining to form a coherent law of international litigation, is a critical shortcoming of the study of the subject.     

Does homeownership counseling affect the prepayment and default behavior of affordable mortgage borrowers?

The lack of industrywide data on homeownership education and counseling (HEC) programs has severely limited evaluation. In particular, very little evidence exists on the relationship between HEC completion and loan prepayment, an outcome of interest to both mortgage lenders and consumer advocates. Where mortgage prepayment directly influences the sustainability of affordable mortgage products, it also reflects the ability of underserved borrowers to access lower‐cost credit through refinancing. This study uses a uniquely rich data set to examine the impact of HEC completion on prepayment and defaultamongborrowers receivingHECfrom a variety of providers across 42 states. The loans, originated between 1999 and 2003, are observed through the first quarter of 2006, a period in which strong housing appreciation and decreasing interest rates generated substantial refinancing activity. Using a competing risks model of mortgage prepayment and default, we find that HEC programs based on classroom instruction and individual counseling improve a borrower's exercise of the mortgage prepayment option, but that programs based on home study or telephone counseling did not affect borrower behavior. Counseling shows no effect on default propensities. © 2008 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.