violence

Violence in the news is usually OK as long as it is does not go overboard. While there may be too much violence on TV, the real problem is with parenting. During the hours that children should be watching TV there is not really violence on TV. If parents are supervising kids and not taking the easy way out then the kids won't see it. Also, parents need to teach their kids so they will be able to discern between fiction and reality. The VT shooter was obviously mentally ill. Who knows what type of upbringing he had and what he was allowed and was not allowed to watch. I think it is interesting that some of the film and video materials he made were very similar to movies. Whether he saw these movies as an adult or as a child he obviously didn't have the ability to discern fiction from reality. I'm not saying that this is the parents fault. There were other factors involved. As far as showing the shooter's images on TV, I'm not to sure how I feel. I chose not to watch the majority of what they were showing. I do think it was too soon to show so much.

Media Violence

Honestly I don't see anything wrong with how the media shows violence in today's world. Especially if the case is an actual news story. If the news story being reported has a violent twist to it then that's just how the rug unfolds. I do believe there are too many violent programs on television today though. All of the crime dramas are perfect examples of such. But for the most part I don't see a problem with what the media reports. It's the public's right to know what's going on in the world. Now as far as Cho's last minute video, I think that was going a little too far. I don't think that it was necessary at all for the media to show that. Especially being just a couple of days after the Virginia Tech tragedy occurred. Maybe a little too soon for that. Maybe it never should've been shown at all. I don't know. I'm not the judge of that. It is part of the news but some things are pushed too far and over the limit.

V-Chip

The V-Chip and most other ratings systems are absurd.
I hate the fact that someone else is deciding what's appropriate and inappropriate for my kids.
I think parents need to stand up and regulate and rate what their kids watch themselves.
I know most will claim they don't have time for that but tough. That's what you signed up for when you became a parent. You have to exercise a little responsibility.
If I had kids I would get up off my ass and quit letting the TV babysit them.
The V-Chip is not effective because it's not guidance from the parents.
Parents should raise their children, not television.

V-Chip

The V-Chip is something for people to point to and say "Look, we're trying to do something about this problem", except that it doesn't do anything. If parents are going to go out of their way to look at what ratings are on a TV show in order to block it, they might as well just tell the kid why they can't watch it. I wouldn't govern my children's TV habits by the ratings, just by my own common sense. I know what is appropriate for them and what is not. I trust my own judgment far more than that of a roomful of suits who shove these ratings on the screen.

V-Chip

I think that the V-Chip is an effective way from keeping children of certain ages from accessing or watching certain television shows. I just think that parents need to be active enough if they care about what their kids watch and activate the controls on their television to block certain shows. That is the parents discretion, hence why they put the parental discretion is advised before shows that may be too violent, portray sexuality, profanity, etc. I don't think that many parents actually do take advantage of such technology though. They let their kids watch whatever they want. If I were a parent I would let my kids watch what they want to an extent. There are some shows on television nowadays that are just way too much for children of certain ages. I wouldn't go by the FCC's ratings though. I would use my own discretion.

Wiki

I would not use wikipedia in a research paper. It says in their guidelines that all information on wikipedia must be from a credible source. That means that the info should published in another place that you can use as a source. The problem is a lot of people don't realize that wikpedia is what it is. There are a lot of topics are wikipedia that are flagged because the neutrality is questioned. There are also some articles that are closed to editing. It seems like this is a problem too. Who decides when you stop the editing and when to let it begin again? This probably often happens when issues are in the forefront of current events, a time when lots of people will be researching the topic. If they aren't aware of what wikipedia is they may take everything they read as fact.

Wikipedia

Wikipedia is not a reputable source for any academic papers. Yes it may contain the correct information but at the same time given that they allow anyone to write about a topic, you can not trust what is put on Wikipedia. Also, for that reason, many professors on campus explicitily forbid students from using Wikipedia as a source. I agree with professors on this fact. I will however acknowledge that I will look up things on Wikipedia, but if I am writing anything for academic use I will not cite Wikipedia.