Violence

It's hard to monitor something like violence in the media because it comes in so many forms and is so prevelent. Violence is on the news all the time in footage from the war in Iraq or local shootings, violence is in shows like the CSI, Law and Order, and Without a Trace. It woud be nearly impossible to regulate violence over the air waves because in some forms the violence is neccessary and in other forms it is excessive.
The Public has the right to be informed, but we do not have the right to know everythig. In some cases knowledge can put peope we are trying to protect into danger. This is kind of off subject, but when Georaldo Riveira was in Afganastan and gave away the location of a top-secret troop mission, he put them in danger, for the sake of full disclosure. That said, knowing exaclty where they were did nothing for us as a television viewer. In the same manner, it does nothing for us to see horrendous shootings or murders. The shoc value isn't worth it

Violence in the Media

I do think the media should be allowed to show violence to certain levels. How are we to know what is REALLY going on in the world and make our own decisions about things if we are being sheltered?

I think that maybe the viewer could be warned that what is about to be shown is violent and they can choose to watch it or not. That way people have a choice if they see the violence or not.

Also, I don't think violence should be shown during the regular hours that young children watch television. I don't think many parents would want their young children to see some of those things.

media violence

I think that the media should be allowed to show violence to a certain extent. And when I say that I guess I am saying they can show the actual violence during the same hours that have been set by the FCC for shows censored for children.

I definatly think that the public should know the truth, but there is a time and a place for all of that. They also need to make sure if they are saying they are showing the truth that is exactly what they are doing. Not just what they want us to see or turn the story and make it bias one way or the other.

I know that there are always going to be people that do not want to see the truth, but the way I feel is. Let's face it people the world is not a wonderful place so don't try not to see what is going on around you. You should be aware of your surroundings and not shield yourself from it. It may not all be pleasant but it is what it is.

Media and Violence

I think the media should show violence to a certain extent. I do not have a problem with the media showing any violence unless it is being taken too far like they are doing with the Iraq war. NBC showing the Cho video as soon as they received it was probably not the best idea. I would, at least, had the families/friends of the loved ones killed along with the authorites to have seen it first and then consulted with them whether it would have been okay for everyone else to see it.

media awareness

It depends on the event, the location of the station and the content of the violence to make a clear judgment. I think the release of material is up to the families of those affected. Other than this, in the case of Cho, u tube would of had the images on the air that same night regardless of if NBC had released them or not. NBC displayed the videos and pictures tastefully and appropriately, all things considered. The families and friends of those killed and injured are the ones that should have been considered more in this decision. But, over all, location, content captured and event are the three main ingredients on rating how appropriate violence is on television.

Patriot Act/Media

I think the government should look into what information the media has. Hey, they do it to us citizens, why not the media????? In the post-9/11 era, we can not take any chances on any information that the government does not know about only to come back and haunt us later. The Patriot Act is a controversial issue. Some people like it. Some do not. Personally, I do not like the government mettling in my business, but if that is what it takes to help keep our country safe then I am all for it.

v-chip

Oops... looks like I'm a little late with this one... Oh well.
With v-chips, I think the bottom line is that they do not replace parenting. They can limit the violence or sexual nature of what is shown on a given television, but indecent nor inapropriate material will still make it into a show rated TV-14 or lower.
The idea behind v-chips is a good one, and they are a great tool, but you still need to monitor for children.

V-Chip

I'm going to have to agree with the majority on this one. I don't think the V-chip has been very effective and mostly because no one takes the time to use it. I personally wouldn't want to figure out how to use it, much less type in a code every time I wanted to watch my show. I don't know anyone, friends or family, that use the v-chip.

I do think that it is an excuse for poor parenting. Except for extenuating circumstances like a single parent who works all the time, like Johnathan said. Parents should be fully aware what their children are watching. If they are not, it's not the television's fault it's the parents.

I understand there may be times when children sneak watching an off limits show. But I did that when I was a kid and I turned out just fine!

V-chip

I would have to say that I don't think that the V-Chip or the FCC is very effective in regulating the shows or content that young children watch on a daily basis. Thought the chip has good intentions it is just really hard for it to actually block all of the bad or inapproriate show or movies that kids are or should be watching.

From things that have been talked about in other classes it is hard for kids to even get the channels that they would need to be watching in the first place. The Disney channel and others like that are not even a part of the basic cable package, which means people are going to have to spend more money just to get those channels and most won't do that.

I also don't think that the FCC is doing its job in regulating what shows are shown during a certian time frame. When it was brought to my attention that there were certain commercials and shows that should not and would not be shown during a certian time frame I decided to watch and see how well that was working. Needless to say it didn't work too well. I saw some things on tv that if I had kids I would not want them to see and they were during what the FCC calls "Prime time hours," the hours that kids are most likely going to be home watching tv.

I guess I am trying to say that I think the V-Chip has good intentions, but just needs to be updated along with the tv regulations of what can be aired at certian times. But if I was to be realistic about it the real answer is. Parents you need to be watching what your kids are watching and make it your responsibility to be the regulator in your household.

V-Chip is lame

From the get go, I have never liked the idea of the V-Chip. I think that it only promotes lazy parenting. For starters, there is no need to have televisions in every room of your house. I think for when you have kids, there should only be televisions in common living areas and the parent's bedroom. That makes it much easier for a parent to monitor what the kid is watching for the most part. Now I know that there are a lot of families nowadays where there is only one parent, or for some reason maybe work, that the parent or parents are not able to be home a lot of the time, so if that is the case, then maybe a V-Chip could be useful, but for the majority of families, it should not even be a choice.

I know that growing up, my parents always knew what I was watching and they made sure that I only had access to channels that they felt were appropriate. Besides, the only thing I wanted to watch was cartoons or stuff that was age appropriate, I always thought stuff like Miami Vice and LA Law were boring because I didn't understand them. Now I know that in today's world, it can be easy to say that there are so many more channels, but face it, if you have a kid and they aren't watching Nickelodeon or Disney or whatever, then the channel probably needs to be changed and that is why you as a responsible parent intervene.

If I had the V-Chip, I would not use it because I would be selfish and would not want to have to worry about putting in or remembering a code every time I watch the Sopranos. I feel that most people would agree with me and would not bother with the chip as well. It's all about being into your kids and knowing what they are watching. Parents are just lazy and soft these days.

V-Chip

This is just another classic example of how technology is trying to ease some of the burden in parenting, but it ultimately excuses moms and dads from the responsibility of monitoring what their children view. Rather than counting on an outside source for child rearing help, strict guidelines should be set and enforced. I feel like a broken record saying this over and over, but parents have been capable of raising children since the dawn of time. It's the lackluster and lethargic attitude of some parents that should be addressed instead of the desire of a young kid wanting to see explosions or scantily clad sex symbols.

v-chip

I think I'm with Jarod on this one. An overwhelming portion of the American populace just has no earthly idea how to use the V-chip feature built into their television set. Is this a problem? I really doubt it. I fail to believe that people would use the V-chip even if the possessed the clairvoyance to operate it. Honestly it's just too much effort.
When the adult in question, who activated the doohickey in the first place, sits down to watch TV after spending a long day doing whatever people do when they're not watching TV, the last thing he/she wants to do is exert the extra energy it takes to punch in the three or four digit code to turn the V-chip back off. Honestly, if the adult in question doesn't have the energy to sit down with his/her kid, discuss what he/she is watching on TV, and take an active role in the kid's life, ensuring that they live a long, happy and fulfilling existence?
I mean come on, parenting is difficult and just because somebody brings a new life into the world is no reason to bust hump and actually raise a human being. That's what TVs are for.

V-Chip

I don't think it is effective. I don't know anyone or me for that matter that has this in their television sets. Nowadays, anyway, kids will find there way around this v-chip and watch any program they want. The parents are not going to be able to know all the programs that they think are inappropiate for their kids and block it. The parents are going to have to be extra cautious of what their children are watching. I don't think the v-chip will help all that much.

The V-chip is not effective.

I can honestly say that I do not know one person who uses the V-chip in their television. Not an aunt or uncle, friend, or other relative... literally nobody. One of the reasons that I think the V-chip is ineffective is because who is teaching you how to use it? The manual that came with your TV? Please, first of all it's a well known fact that no guy reads a manual for a television. We men are preprogrammed to know how to work a TV. You take it out of the box, plug it in, put batteries in the remote and away we are. The V-chip is what guys like to call "a process" meaning that in the time it takes to figure out how to use it we could have done 12 other things that are deemed to be more useful... plus Sportscenter is on an lord knows that nothing is more important than that.

Also, I think that some people view the V-chip as a form of regulation. Simply put, that we are filtered from certain content. This bothers me. Personally I don't like the idea of missing out on something and when I am not allowed to view something, well that is going to get to me.

Now I know that this is primarily designed for children... and that it came about shortly after the Columbine Massacre in response to the viewpoint that children were seeing too much violence on TV and that it was effecting the way children saw the world. Well, if you ask me the V-chip is no excuse for poor parenting. Seriously, you should know damn well what your kids are watching on TV. You should be right there watching it with them, no excuses. The television has become a babysitter in this day and age, how it morphed into that I have no idea. If you are going to let your kids watch TV unregulated, then make sure you are having a dialog with them about what they are watching. So many people are afraid to talk to their kids these days. Be a parent, or at least try. Sit down with your children and set the guidelines for what they should be watching and then enforce it. Or find an alternative to too much TV time. It's OK to play with your kids - they just might enjoy it.

V-chip

The V-chip does keep programs from showing up, but only when children can't figure out the password or learn to watch around the blocks. Bottom line is: the TV is not the babysitter. it is not the FCC's job to regulate what your children watch. Parents should be more accountable for what their children do, then none of this would be a problem.

wikipedia

I would use wikipedia in a paper, but only if that citing was backed up with another citation. I trust the site when researching, but only when I already have a clear understanding of the topic. The site is a good tool for research, but considering that anyone can contribute to the definition or a topic, it can be a tricky tool if you are not careful and do not do other research.

Wikipedia

Wikipedia, by large, is pretty reliable. Yes it is updated by common people, and yes, mistakes are possible, but there are enough people that check and update the site, that it keeps it in line. Since people cite a good deal of their research, you can track their research to more reputable sources, and it gives you a great leg up on knowing where to look. Nobody should trust wikipedia for any kind of academic research, but sometimes it is a great road map for knowing what to start looking for and where to look for it.

I'm surprised Johnathan is the only person thus far to admit (more specifically) he's used it as a source in a research paper. I think, although the chance of misinformation exists, Wikipedia is darn close to being a very reliable source. Maybe I haven't been sharp enough to catch it or perhaps just lucky enough to avoid all the false information on the site, but I have yet to have my confidence in Wikipedia shaken. And Johnathan, I'm with you. I use Wikipedia in papers frequently.

Using Wikipedia

Wikipedia is a good source to find information on anything. I would cite/use Wikipedia for a paper as a source. In fact, I have used it on a paper and my professor had no problems with it. Most of the time though, I would spend extra time double checking to make sure that the information on Wikipedia is accurate. For example, I am not going to use anything that sounds ridiculous, but my experience with Wikipedia has been that their information is accurate and also very helpful.

Wikipedia

When writing a paper, I don't think that Wikipedia is a reliable source of research information. Personally, I do use it every now and then just to get an idea about something, but I would never use it for a paper. There are too many people out there who submit false or inaccurate information.

Wikipedia

I would not trust wikipedia. Yes.... it is a good site to go and look up certain information, but to totally use it as a source is not a good idea. There are people from all around that can edit things on there not to be true. Personally, I would check the encyclopedia first before going over to wikipedia.

Wikipedia

Wikipedia is not to be trusted, that said, it is a great source to se how others view a certain subject. I often use it as a starting point and then verify the information I need elsewhere. I do not think it should be referenced in scholarly works, unless that work is on the culture of media. While many people post knowledgeable and intelligent items, it is the few who blatantly corrupt the system who are making it unreliable.

iTunes, etc

I’m guilty, I’ll admit it. I’m a pirate, it’s true. But aren’t we all? I was an avid illegal downloader back in the day (by avid, I do not mean excessive, but a ‘normal’ amount). I have since reformed and now use the very legal iTunes. (and thanks to daddy’s credit card, it’s just like being free, I kid). My conscience is clear. iTunes and similar sites are fantastic because they are so easy to use. Now if they only had The Beatles…

Parody/Fair Use

While the issue of parody in broadcasting and fair use can be tricky, I feel that the examples we were shown in class were clear-cut. If anything is on SNL it is obviously a parody and within the realm of fair use. Of course there are times when the line is more muddy. I tend to think more things should be allowed into the sphere of fair use.

Music and iTunes

iTunes have improved the world of music. With this program, anyone can choose to buy just the song they are interested in, without having to get in the car and pick it up in the music store. I personally find myself buying more music from the comfort of my computer chair as opposed to standing in a music store. iTunes also promotes music well, if not better than music stores because of the attainable information without have to stop a teenager to ask.

iTunes and music sharing will do nothing but improve listening.

Parody and fair use

Depending on the topic and the way you use the "art" will depend on if it is a libel suit or not. In the case of SNL, i think it is fair use. Every one and everything they parody is in the public eye. It is very case by case subjective, and i think it should be up to the artist. It is the argument between keeping the original art safe and not keeping other people from being creative.

iTunes et al

Don't remember if I post on my own topic or not, so I'll keep it short. I think that iTunes and similar movements have the potential to greatly reform the music community. I think it's unfair that artists, the people responsible for the music, get a very small cut and loose the rights to manage their own music. I believe that there is a long way to go before things are set right, but it's moving in the right direction finally.

Fair Use

Fair use needs to be a permissible reason to avoid libel suits. I don't really see how either of these cases represents libel, but I guess the author could be offended about having his characters malformed. Most parodies are unflattering of their source material, but sometimes this message is the purpose of the parody. It's very difficult to parody a private figure and if I remember correctly, public figures have a much harder time proving libel. Main point, if all parodies were open to libel suits...we'd probably never have them.

Fair Use

I don't really know if fair use is a reasonable excuse to get yourself out of a libel suit, but I also think that their are other circumstances that have to be considered.

But I do think that you should have some ground to stand on when it comes to fair use, but I guess if you look at it from one way or another you could vailidate both sides.

I really don't have much to say about this topic, but maybe after class I will understand it a little more.

I-Tunes

I think that Itunes has had an effect on the recording industry, but I don't think that it can be blamed for all of the problems that the recording industries have been having.

I think that now that the world and most Americans have become so lazy that it is so much easier to just type the song in online and get it off the web. But I know that I not only get it off of the web, but I also buy the cd if I really like the song. So I don't think that itunes is the only reason for the problems.

Fair Use and Parody

Fair use and parody is definitely a valid excuse to get out of a potential libel suit in almost all cases. Without parody and fair use, we could have no Saturday Night Live or Weird Al. I think it is important to our culture that we are able to make fun of these things and parody them.

Even though people might say that we should all just create our own original stuff, I think that some of the best ideas have come from people who have taken something and made it better. That is what fair use and parody allow us to do. Taking that away from Americans would be a terrible thing and limit our freedoms as a society.

Sharing Music Online

I think that music sharing has had a lot of complicated effects on the music industry. I think the Internet has most importantly provided a way for artists to make a good living themselves without having to worry about being signed to a major record label. The Internet has also provided an opportunity for artists to have their music heard around the world, when ten years ago, their music would not have made it outside of their local town.

However, downloading is hurting a lot of artists, but more importantly it is hurting the record companies. Which for the future, is going to lead to the arguement of do we need record companies? I think that the music business itself is going to have to endure the most change but it is not going to go out without a fight. Now is the time in the music industry for change and I think people like Tunecore are going to be the most successful as far as the record distribution. The music industry as we know it is in a serious crisis and it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Fair Use

I really do not understand the full definition of fair use. All I know is if you are using someone else's work, make sure you credit their work. Personally, I like to come up with ideas on my own instead of using the work of another person. It would be a lot easier on myself and everyone else. If you happen to get sued for libel, make sure you can prove that you are telling the truth with the right facts to support your work.

Online Music Sharing

I think downloading music online has changed the music industry for the better. You have more options online to download a song instead of an entire CD that might cost you a lot of money. You can listen to a certain portion of a song as a free preview before deciding whether you want to buy it or not. Plus it's faster to get. I am not that big into music, but even someone like me sees this as a good thing. Rather than going to a music store and having to spend more money on a CD packet, I can download a single song online that would cost me less money.

Online Music Sharing and the Recording Industry

Itunes and online music sharing have changed the music industry in many ways. It allows you to purchase the songs you want to listen to instead of having to buy an entire CD. It has also allowed local artists, who wouldn't normally be able to get their music heard, out there for people to listen too. One thing I don't really like about Itunes is the number of times it will allow you to download the same song. I feel that if you have bought the song, it should be yours...it shouldn't matter how many computers you put it on. My husband is a computer technition and we have gone through several computers throughout the years. It is such a pain when Itunes makes me re-download the songs I have already purchased.

As far as online music sharing changing tomorrow's music...I think it will get more artists' names out there and give us a wider variety of music to listen to.

Online Sharing and the Music Industry

The music industry is slowly benefiting from the on-line promotions and sales that is the new face of iTunes and Napster and other on-line music sites. The music industry is finally doing something about the "loss" (and note the quotations) of the on-line downloading phenomena of the late nineties and into this century. While sites like iTunes and Napster have helped to drive the price of a CD down to $9.99 per full volume there are certain conditions. First of all, it's not a physical copy of the CD, instead it is an electronic copy downloaded straight to your iTunes library. Also, the downloaded album has a transfer limit, meaning that it can only be burnt to a CD or switched to a different iTunes library about 3 times. Is this worth the 3 dollar reduction of price as compared to a physical copy of the album? NO! It's not worth it. Just like before when downloading was apparently free and somewhat not illegal just yet, the music industry is still thriving. Thanks to the measures and restrictions on these downloaded albums, having a physical copy still benefits the user. You have all the songs in the same quality in the right track order in the original formatted style. With the downloaded material you have tracks of conflicting quality with long pauses in between tracks that aren't on the original volume. Not to mention that you miss out on the album artwork... bummer :(

So, the CD still has some worth - however if you want one track you aren't going to go buy the album. Insert iTunes and Napster. However these are mostly publicity tools in my opinion. Does iTunes really do enough single sales in volume to truly benefit the music industry? Nope. The new wave is unsigned local artists who put most of the works available to download on the net. If you like them then you go out and buy their album to support them, so that maybe one day you can go see them live in concert coming to an arena near you. Finally being a musician takes a little work. Better get a good publicist, because your "album" deal ain't going to cut it any more.

Fair Use Doctrine and Libel Law?

Fair use is essential to a democratic media. It successfully allows for parodies and other forms of satire for copyrighted works. These types of commentaries on the originals should be upheld as a form of free expression. Without them, we would be facing even more instances of conglomerates and other cases where a multitude of works were owned by a handful of corporations. These would then become forever locked away... never to be heard or seen again. The beneficial thing about parodies is that it generates interest in the original. Trust me, someone is waiting out there for a satire on Mork and Mindy, so that they can re-launch the original back into circulation and benefit off the publicity. It's a classic pattern of development. Take South Park's, "The Passion of the Jew" - which was a clear parody of Passion of the Christ, a famous Mel Gibson production. Not only was the South Park version wildly popular among it's cult following, but it led some of those viewers to watch the Passion of the Christ to fully understand the South Park parody. Genius! Both parties profited.

Now in regards to libel? Well the relationship of Fair Use to libel is loose at best. Is there even a landmark case here? I could see it being an issue in copyright law but not in libel cases. Someone wasn't paying attention in mass comm law if they think that these two principles are closely related to each other. Show me a case and prove me wrong.

Getting to the issue - libel is libel and the only real defense in a libel case is the truth.

video news releases

I think that they could be considered news worthy if they were done in a professional manner. I don't think they should just be used as a way to fill up a day with news. I guess on whether or not it is ethical will depend on what is being said or the topic given. I think that it is easy to get away from being ethical when it is a quick news relase. You tend to not be really concerned about who sees it and what is said.

This is a lazy way of doing journalism, but I think it fits the time frame. In todays time we are constantly looking to find the easy way out. However this is going to end up hurting the crediability of news and media in the end.

VNR's

VNR's can be both positive and negative. For news stations, they can help fill up time on a slow news day, and they can help the network save money by not having to pay someone to go get a story if they just receive it from a PR firm. I think that VNR's do create lazy journalism. This in turn, could cause reporters to eventually be replaced unless they get off their butts to go get the story. VNR's will only give networks reasons to fire more employees to cut costs.

Also, I have a problem with just getting your video from one source that is not objective. If you want to just take one side of the story that is biased and run it, then what is going to stop others from just releasing their own video. For example, where does this end. I mean it is not to unimaginable that the White House start releasing their own packages to news outlets, and not letting others report on stories. I could really see something like that happen, if that is what journalists accept.

VNR

I really do not have an opinion on this issue one way or another. All I am for is the media to be honest and accurate with whatever information they give us. Where ever they get it needs to be from any credible source. I hope that is not too much to ask although, I doubt it. The media nowadays can be lazy.

VNR's

I don't see an ethical problem with journalists using video news releases as long as they inform where they got their information and make sure the story is unbiased and newsworthy. I suppose that maybe VNR's could promote lazy journalism,but I agree with Laura's comment. Journalists are paid next to nothing and on top of that the job is stressful. With that combination I'm sure that it's hard to stay motivated. I don't see anything wrong with journalists using outside help as long as they make sure the VNR's are newsworthy and don't overuse them.

Video News Releases

Video news releases are a double-edged sword. On one hand, it make the journalist's job MUCH easier, on the other hand, it ensures the PR firm gets a story on the air. If it is a valuable story that causes interest in viewers and is actually news, than there is no problem in the publishing on the news. The problem is when journalism does not happen to change up and re organize the VNR to make it an unbiast news story. VNRs can be ethical journalism, but it is up to the journalists to make it into real news.

VNRs most definitely create lazy journalists. Regardless of if the journalist turns the story into real news or not, the VNR does part, or all, of the work for the journalist. Not that this is bad thing. Journalists hardly get paid anything, therefore, having someone else help them do their work is justifiable because of the low pay.

VNR's

I think VNR's are ok for news broadcasts if it is made clear who has produced the information. In my opinion, it's no different than using a press release. If the news station is pssing the VNR off as a legitimate story that they produced.. I'm not ok with that. But I think the distinction should be made.

I don't really have an opinion if VNR's... I suppose they do encourage a bit of lazy journalism... but if a journalist or news station is going to be lazy... they dont need VNR's to help facilitate that problem. I