oh yeah sure, that's cause I study Econ at uni and frankly, the effect of moving the minimum wage up or down on unemployment depends so much on about a billion other factors (what industries, how mobile the labour force is, are the workers unionised, are the stores affected local monopolies etc), that to saying, unilaterally having a minimum wage/raising it is a bad thing, is quite frankly ludicrous. What I meant by saying I was more on his side was that yes, minimum wage probably does result in higher unemployment overall, but it cannot be 100% certain and may not be a wholly bad thing. See this famous paper studying the increase in NJ's min wage (in the middle of a recession no less) on the unemployment rate, which actually fell, and obviously fast food prices won't rise by exactly the same % since labour cost is only part of the whole store's operations. http://davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf And after your post, I went back to watch another 5 minutes from 19 min to 24min, but Peter Schiff has his own head so far up his arse it's painful to watch. He actually said he challenges anybody to sit in a room with him for 4 hours and not come away convinced that the min wage is a bad thing. Well I can think of plenty of professors at my uni who could easily do so and probably bring up their own academic papers to challenge him.
Then these people should not be doing interviews for the show. It's incredibly obvious that the Daily Show does this, yet these people still go on the show and expect their side of the story to be objectively told?
It's not obvious if you are not a viewer of The Daily Show and they present themselves as sincerely interested in what you have to say about a topic. The "you ***cked up, you trusted us" excuse is not convincing.
Would you ever give an interview to a show that you've never watched? Especially if it's regarding political views?
Yeah, I find it to be a really cheap and lazy way to get laughs. They definitely have a particular political point of view, and its one I generally agree with. Its fine to present their perspective in a humorous way and even mock/parody views they don't agree with. But just be honest and upfront with the people you're bringing to the show. At the very least add a disclaimer indicating that the interviews are intended for comedic purposes only, are edited for this effect, and should not be taken in any way to be informational.
It amuses me that people expect something different than comedy from a program that airs on (drum roll) The Comedy Network. Having said that, I find that The Daily Show is often more filled with truth than what I see on the cable news networks, networks that they make fun of, and they make fun of all of them. Sure, they use satire, but it is often satire that illuminates reality, instead of obscuring it by blatantly twisting the facts to skew reality all out of recognition, while proclaiming that they are spouting "the truth." Daily frequently makes me laugh and nod my head at the same time. I don't always agree with the bent of a particular bit, but then I don't always agree with some of my fellow Democrats. Some of you need to relax. You're too uptight.
First off, he is explaining it for a general audience; so obviously it doesn't have the same rigor as an academic article. Secondly, his explanation as to why the minimum wage is bad, again, if you watched it, you'll find is beyond just higher unemployment. He talks about the historical premise of minimum wage, the role of entry level jobs, how it affects the mentally r****ded etc. I don't really need to comment on the contents of your article because of this. I'm just making this comment so that it doesn't seem like I ignored it. I only looked at parts of it. I hope you don't find me hypocritical for asking you to listen to an hour's length of video then not reading your article in turn. It's pretty long. I'm not an expert in this field (though I've taken some courses), though I am aware of the diligence necessary for reading an academic article (and, honestly, I find the level of language in your article far more accessible than the articles I'm used to reading). Reading through your academic article is a much bigger job than giving an hour to listen to someone explain things for a general audience. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that your summary of it is accurate. However, as I said, Peter Schiff argues for more outside of higher unemployment to justify his stance against the minimum wage. So, in summary, I hope you'll watch the video thoroughly, then comment. I'm honestly interested in listening to your opinion as a student of the field. It's his prerogative to act like that. If that rubs you the wrong way and you don't want to listen to him, that's your right too but don't go around saying he's wrong without listening to what he said. Quite frankly, I don't find what he said that excessive compared to normal sales talk. Whether or not you think your professors could challenge him has absolutely no implication.
There are many people who believe that being a president depends on things like lapel pins or swift boat commercials or whether Obama's secretly a Muslim. And these come from supposed legit news sources. The fact that people can't differentiate between a comedic political satire and actual news is more an indictment of actual news than the comedy. As well as society in general not wishing to learn, but simply to confirm their own ideologies. I can't imagine anyone who spend equal amount of time watching, say, the News Hour and Daily Show would come away agreeing more with the Daily Show's views.
This levying of blame towards the interviewees, who are victims btw, is just ridiculous. You recognize that The Daily Show does all the bad stuff that I said and you quoted and you're giving them a pass? But to answer your question, Peter Schiff says in the video that he went to The Daily Show to be informative (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/peter-schiff-takes-mediaite-inside-the-daily-show-hit-job/). Also, he was given verbal and written assurances that what he would be saying wouldn't be taken out of context (http://schiffradio.com/b/EXCLUSIVE:-How-The-Daily-Show-Lies/-846064028400943500.html). If that's mum to you, consider this: Schiff and, as Commodore posted in the first page, several other interviewees requested undoctored copies of their interviews to repair their reputation. The Daily Show refused. Now, I have no idea why Jon Stewart would not help these people who have been getting death threats.
Gee, who would of thought that a show on The Comedy Channel, hosted by a comedian, and written by a staff of comedy writers wasn't a serious news show?
The funny thing... there are times that Rush or Ann Coulter or Savage or Hannity will say something truly awful, and the right wing will jump to the defense that "they were saying it in jest".
The Daily Show exposes hypocrisy, propaganda, discrimination, illogic, selfishness, grandstanding, greed, pettiness and general insanity. People who agree to go on the show know that, but still their hubris and narcissism drive them to the publicity and exposure. Which frankly just reinforces the fact that some of them, despite their ranking within their genre, are just downright stupid, Frank Luntz for example. For me, the Daily Show and Colbert are a 4 day a week affirmation and coping mechanism, that confirm that I am not alone in my incredulity at this absurd circus.
It's not wrong for comedy to have a point. It's also foolish to think the main purpose isn't for entertainment.
Say what? You equate The Daily Show to Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hannity? I am sure that would come as a surprise to Limbaugh, Coulter, and Hannity... I reckon that this should only compliment Jon Stewart and the rest of the comedy writers on The Daily Show... that they have grown so successful at presenting political discussion that the right wing (often, but not always the target of their barbed humor) views them in the same way as their own political commentators.
