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