Media Violence

I see nothing wrong with covering violent things in the news, but it is how they are covered that makes all the difference. Showing graphic things when they are not crucial to understanding the story is when the line is crossed. When things happen live it is harder to censor and make content decisions, but news stories that have hours to write before air have plenty of time to make good decisions on what to show and what not to show.

Media Violence

How much violence should the media air? America is so used to violence that sometimes it doesn't even phase us anymore. Everyday we hear about drive by shootings, rapes, and burglary. But when something huge happens like with Virginia Tech, we ask ourselves is that too much? I think it depends on what station you are watching. Local news shouldn't show stuff like the videos Cho sent in to NBC, but I think its legit for CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News to play the violence. When people turn on the 24 hour news stations they know that it will have violence. I do think the Cho videos went to far. It was too early for the victims' families of Virginia Tech to see their loved one's killer get so much publicity. Journalist need to think before putting so much violence on the news.

"If it bleeds..."

I hate that most people don't respect the news. Well, maybe that's because local, and now national, news is toilet matter. That's right. It's poop. Why do we feel the need to follow the old adage "if it bleeds, it leads"? Seriously, is it really that big of a deal. Fires, rapes, murders, its all we see. Then they feel the need to lighten it up every now and again with a "human interest" piece on a dog show or something equally not relevant to my life or yours.

If the coverage on the VaTech shootings were more on the heroes, the students who stepped forward and the victims, I'd be more inclined to watch. But it is all about Cho, who he was, why he shot up people and that's because we live in a culture of fear. We have to know who is attacking us and why so we can go to extreme lengths to protect ourselves in the future. Have I watched the videos that he mailed in? Hell no, because I learned all I needed to know the first night.

Media Violence

Most of the time the News on tv is Not good news. Most newstories have to do with who was killed, who was shot, who was raped, or who was robbed. The Media is embedded with violence. This is because the American public craves to hear about the bad things because i think that it reassures them that they have a good life and that things can't be all that bad. I do feel that often violent news stories are blown to high in the limelight. the whole incident at VaTech is still being covered in the news, as it should be, but it's all about Cho and very little about the victims and the good people that they were. We all want answers for why things happen, but sometimes the way they are given to us are overwhelming and unneccesary

media violence

When is violence too much violence? I think that the over exposure of violence in news recently has desensitized society on the whole. Now when someone blows up a building or shoots up a school we are almost accustomed to the images. It seems that the media takes the most shocking and gory footage they can get their grubby little hands on and broadcasts it to the world. Replaying the same image over and over searing it into the minds of the viewer. This desensitizes the viewer. This does not take into account the feeling of the victim. I myself am a private person and if something horrific were to happen to me I would not want the entire world to see me like that. No matter how newsworthy the story somethings need to be left to the imagination. The media needs to reevaluate their cause if it is truly in the public best interest and their right to know or if it is solely for the sake of viewers and ratings?

Violence

It depends. If you're talking about news, then I think the media needs to keep in mind that they are serving the public with information and that means a public of all ages. When they present violent material they need to consider the age groups that could potentially view it. I think you can definitely present a violent story without having to show it or go into too much detail and still get the point across. If you're talking about a television show then I just think they need to keep in mind the time of day their show will be aired. I don't think showing violence is a bad thing for adults who are mature enough to handle it, it's the younger audience that I worry about seeing it.

Media Violence

I think the media needs to be careful what they show, but, I do think that the media can talk about what happend. It does not bother me to witness violence on tv, but I know that the Cho video really had an impact on the victims' families. It is a double-edged sword. They need to display the facts, but they also need to be sensitive. I thought they showed enough of the video to give everyone an idea of what Cho wanted to do. Just the part that I watched made me sick so I cannot imagine how the victims felt seeing him all over again.

V-Chip

I think the V-Chip is great if it is used. It is up to parents to censor what their children are watching. I know when I have children that there will be censoring of tv shows that my wife and I do not deem appropriate. I think it is a tool that is available to everyone to use, but I do not think many parents care enough to use it.

V Chip

I don't think there is much of an issue for the VChip. It is installed in TV for parents/owners of the tv's to use if they so please. I don't think it is wrong for a prent to choose what they don't want their kids being exposed to. The V-Chip doesn't automatically censor anyone's tv and so I think it is a good tool for parents to use considering some may not be abel to be around their child 24/7.

wiki-ty whack, v chips

I personally don't trust wiki as a valid source for educational research. I think its perfectly acceptable to use it as a stepping stone for legit research. I think its cool and nice and all that, but I feel that its pretty much a universe of kids who think they know everything.

V-chips. I never plan on having children, so its not something that I actively think about. Parents need to be able to make strong decisions and teach their children first then restrict content. But that's just me. I hate kids, so I'm not the best person to be asking.

V-Chip

The V-chip can be very effective if used. When activated it can block all strong language and other things that children should not be exposed to. Ultimately it is the parents discretion to what they feel their children should be exposed to. My parents didn't allow me to have a TV in my room and we didn't have cable because of the content on cable programing. My parents wanted me to be a kid for as long as possible. I think had they purchased a television with a v-chip they might have gotten cable before I moved out. When I am a parent I will use the v-chip for many reasons. The main reason is there is content on television children are not ready to see.

DA V-CHIP!!!!!

I'm pretty sure the v-chip might be the most useless invention ever for the television. I've never met anyone who uses it or anyone who would begin to know how to use it. I'm sure it's not that hard to figure out, but who honestly wants to change the settings when they want to watch a program that had previously been banned by the parent because it was unsuitable for children. Tv ratings make a little more sense because parents can see what their kids are watching if they pay close enough attention. I think that most parents use the tv as a babysitter for kids or as a reward. The parents are usually busy while kids watch violence, sex, and other acts that they probably should stay away from. Because tv is always changing and pushing the envelope it will be hard for a ratings system to keep up

V-Chip

I think the V-chip is one way to protect children but I think the parents need to control what their children watch. I think the v-chip and ratings can regulate to an extent. I think children should not have televisions in their room because the parent isn't in there and the parent should be monitoring at all time what their children watch. If I was a parent I woukd utilize the v-chip and would regulate my child's tv watching through the ratings but like I said I would watch what my children watch.

fair use and muzak

Of course fair use can be a valid point to get out of a libel suit, but only if it's applicable. Then again, I think the restrictions on fair use and the body of work able to be parodied should be widened. And don't even get me started on copyright laws.

Online music is amazing. I was a bit of a pirate when I was younger but I have reformed. But like most people, I used it to find rare covers and live music for bands that I already liked that weren't commercially available. The other avenue I used online music for was to expand my horizons by finding new music - which has actually become easier through iTunes. You like this band? Then you'll love this band! Which is harder to do with p2p because of the search engine capabilities. I hope online music has changed or will change the industry, but I doubt anything major will happen. I can only hope that it will drive down the prices because maybe I'd buy a whole CD again. For now, I'll pick and choose the single songs that I like.

Wikepedia

I like Wikepedia. There is a lot of great information on there to use. You do have to be careful what you use on there though. I have found some things that were completely false. I think you can cite it, but I think you would be smarter if you double check what you found. Anyone can post on there, so that means you can get some whacked out stuff.

Wikipedia

I think Wikipedia is okay for using on a paper or an essay. I have used it to cite many things before in papers. When comparing websites with information, Wikipedia has the same information the other websites do. I also think it is a quick and easy way to fiind out what something is. It does say encyclopedia on the top of the website. I will keep using Wikipedia for my papers.

Music...

I think that over all Itunes has helped the industry out. People get to hear a couple of songs before buying a CD. BUT!!!!!!!!!!It has had a different affect on me. I don't buy CD's and I don't buy music from Itunes, as long as i have a Computer and a music program I will pirate the music i listen to...I'm just being real yall. I don't even listen to CD's in the car, i listen to my Ipod, but i wont buy music from Itunes...Holla.

Wik....

I don't know for sure if i'd site Wikipedia..Well, it really depends on the class or the professor. Some professors probably wouldn't allow it because it is kind of new and it doesn't seem like a "safe" alternative to an encyclopedia. I guess if i wanted to be lazy I'd use it. I guess thats all I have to say.

Wikipedia

I do use Wikipedia and I do cite it as a source. If I take something off the internet I apply proper citations. Wikipedia is a site of information. You can certainly use it, especially if you back it with other sources. With my experience, most of my use with Wikipedia has been accurate and helpful. If I'm able to use it in college papers and my professors find it as an acceptable source, then why not cite it?

I have and will continue to use wikipedia as a source in papers. I think wikipedia is somewhat reliable and as long as you make sure that you don't use it as your main and only source in a paper then it is fine as a reference. Wikipedia is looked down upon in the academic realm but I think it is ok to use in certain circumstances. It all depend on the information given on the web page.