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.

Wikipedia's Credibility

I do consider Wikipedia to be a credible website for research. I've used it before on many a paper or research project while I've been in college. Some professors say not to use it, others don't mind if you use it, and some encourage that you use it. Big deal if it is a user-edited website. It's not like the stuff that people upload on it is bologna. You can find credible information. By looking at wikipedia's five pillars for posting something on the website, it shows to me the fact that you need to have credible information. Otherwise it's not going to stay up on the site. They have to meet certain guidelines so..... All in all, Wikipedia is ok by me.

Fair Use

As far as libel, if you can claim something as being a parody, then yes, it can save you from a libel suit. It has happened before, with Jerry Falwell and Hustler magazine. Otherwise, fair use is going to be of no use.

ITunes

ITunes has made it much easier for the industry to get their work out to the public. We've already reached the point where some albums (WWE: The Music, Vol. 7 comes to mind) are being released solely online, without a physical CD version being available. This makes independent music nearly as accessible as major label work.

Itunes

I think Itunes has changed the music world. But it is in same direction the music industry has been going in for sometime. Itunes allows another way to make money and advertise. It helps sell their products and promote whatever TV show says, "Check out these songs on itunes." Personally, I don't use Itunes or even have an Ipod. I think the article on Tunecore is interesting. I makes me feel a little better that smaller artists can somehow get their songs on Itunes.

Itunes

The only thing that Itunes has changed about the recording industry is that now you have added a third party trying to get a piece of the pie. We live in a fast paced society where people live there lives on the go, and Itunes was smart enough to see the need for music on the go in a legal way. Yes this has changed the recording industry in other ways but those ways are not that drastic. In terms of how it will effect the industry in the future it will probably turn into another scandal. Rumors are already floating around that Itunes is pressuring record labels and artists to give them first access to the artists music. Yes this is a problem but so was payola and plugola. One reform that is going to come of this is that the law makers will have to look into these allegations and figure out how they can stop them from occuring. The other reform is that record labels and artists are going to try and use the internet to sell their music and stop using Itunes. It will help create competition.

Parody

Parody is an every day part of life. The fact that we are having to discuss parody is what is wrong with our culture today. We live in a society of people who only think about themselves and so when somebody creates a parody of their work and makes some money off of it they have a problem. People need to get over this idea and realize that even though somebody spoofed your work they still had to come up with the idea and then create the parody. That takes a lot of hard work. Parody is a good thing. If you can't laugh at yourself then who can you laugh at.

Online Music Distribution

I think that Itunes and other online music stores have done nothing more than throw lots of green into the pockets of big time record executives. They're the ones that get the largest cut out of record sales anyway. To just add other ways for artists music to be accessed other than going out and buying the album just doubles what these companies are going to be making. It's ludicrous. I don't really think that it's going to change music all that much from what has already happened. Ipod's have been around for a while now and so has Itunes. What's going to be the difference five or ten years down the road? Nothing! Bands will be getting their cut, execs will be getting theirs, and producers etc... I'll say this, it hasn't changed how I buy music nowadays. I've always gone out and bought the artists cd, because if it's an artist I don't like, i'm not going to buy their music in the store, let alone the internet. I buy cd's to the bands I listen to. Simple as that. The music industry will always make that dough. They've been doing it for a long time now. Don't expect it to stop anytime soon.

Parody and Fair Use

I totally think it's fair for someone to create a parody of someone else's work. Some would consider it plagiarizing because you are using context from their work, but if you change it up big deal. The Wind Done Gone and Gone With the Wind, maybe they are about the same story. But guess what, they were told from two totally different aspects. In my eyes, I don't think that you could have a legitimate lawsuit against somebody over that. So big deal they made a parody or satire of your work. Get over it! That's the beauty of fair use.

ITunes

I'm not sure how ITunes and online music has changed the recording industry.
To me they appear to be the same greedy money hungry fatcats that they've always been.
They still release overpriced albums with maybe two good songs on them.
That was what they were doing before online music!
About the only thing I can think of is them now putting extra content and free downloads on their CDs or maybe creating songs for ITunes.
But in the end the good songs are still coming out 2 and 3 at a time on an 18 dollar CD with 15 other bad songs.

Parody.

I think parody counts as fair use. I don't think you should be able to sue over it either.
It's using something existing to create something funny and entertaining. I think if we do that then we're creating a read-only culture and really stifling creativity.
I think we should be able to poke fun at various forms of entertainment and various people without fear of attack or legal suit.
If we aren't allowed to make people laugh then it's a sad world.

VNR's

Video news releases are not always a bad thing but most of the time they are. VNR's allow for journalists to just pass the tape on to the producer as a story, by just adding in a lead in and an outro. This does however create lazy journalism. The industry that I know sends out a lot of VNR's is the pharamcutical industry. They use VNR's to try and create good press for a new pill. The problem here is that they will leave out some of the things a good journalist would not leave out. Overall VNR's are bad for today's news agencies and they need to realize it before it gets one of them in major trouble.

VNR

I do not think that VNRs are good for journalism. Just because someone sends you a VNR or holds a press conference doesn't mean that you have to air it or hurry and send a reporter. The worst is when you run the entire VNR, even the narration that came with it. I don't think it would be a problem if they had used JUST the video and added their own, well investigated and reported, story. Sometimes you just can't get video.

Video News Releases

I honestly think that VNR's are a joke. It's some dreamed up news story that in actuality is an advertisement for whatever company the news release is produced for. So to answer the question, are VNR's journalistically ethical? In my opinion, no they're not. News should be reported in an ethical manner covering any and all sides to a story and not reporting a news story on what company ABC has compared to what company XYZ doesn't. So no I don't like these things at all. They do make journalists lazy. It's a quick story that they can fill their deadlines with.

They suck.

Video News Releases suck. Seriously.
I hate a lot of PR because you can't trust it. They're trying to make their client sound good. They sweep away or downplay the bad stuff.
I don't trust VNR because they're not giving me the whole story. News is supposed to give me all sides of the story and keep me informed. VNR's are just giving me one side of the story.
It is lazy journalism and I think it's a crutch used by news broadcasters that are running low on content or too lazy to actually research the story themselves.
Rather than research it and present the whole story they just use the VNR.
That's why I don't like them.

They suck.

Video News Releases suck. Seriously.
I hate a lot of PR because you can't trust it. They're trying to make their client sound good. They sweep away or downplay the bad stuff.
I don't trust VNR because they're not giving me the whole story. News is supposed to give me all sides of the story and keep me informed. VNR's are just giving me one side of the story.
It is lazy journalism and I think it's a crutch used by news broadcasters that are running low on content or too lazy to actually research the story themselves.
Rather than research it and present the whole story they just use the VNR.
That's why I don't like them.