Fair Use

I think fair use is a valid excuse to get out of a libel suit. Parody a lot of the times brings promotion to the original. When weird Al parodies a song it makes you appreciate the original and listen to the original to see the differences. It makes it have more attention and is actually bringing it advertisement.

Online Music

Itunes and online music has changed the recording industry in many ways. With sharing sites like Kazaa and Lime Wire people can get music without even buying it. But with Itunes the person doesn't have to go buy the CD at the store and can buy just a song on the internet. The reocrding industry doesn't have to produce as many CDs to sell because they are selling more on Itunes. The good thing about Itunes is you can just buy one song without buying the whole CD. I think with music online it is helping smaller unknown musicians get their music heard and bought.

Fair Use

I think that parody and Fair Use are ok to use to get out of a libel suit. As long as the parody has some new creative viewpoint it should be allowed to be used. Sure the original artist, writer, or whoever is going to be mad that someone based an idea off of their own and is making money, but almost everything we have has been based off someone elses idea. Changing a small portion of original work should not count as parody, but in the case of Gone with the Wind and the Wind Done Gone, i think that is a perfect example of why the 2nd book should have been allowed. Even though the storyline was basically the same it was told from another's viewpoint. Weird Al is another artist who uses parody. He usually asks for permisson from the original artist to parody their song and then does the parody, but in the case with his song Amish Paradise he did not get permisson from Coolio to parody Gangsta's Paradise. However, no lawsuit was filed because it was fair use and a parody

3 blog answers in one b/c im behind :)

VNR's:
I don't think that VNR's are ethical journalism. If you get a new story idea from one of the videos, go out and do your own reporting. But trying to pass off these PR created videos that are more often than not spun in one direction (pro-client) is completely unethical.

Sensationalism:
News sensationalism encompasses most of the "news" we see today. There is seriously so much wrong with the 24-hour news networks but there's really no solution to make it better or change the way they do business. For me, it definitely harms the reputation of the news source. Sensationalism is just another reason why I choose to get all of my news online. There's no flashy graphics, no breaking news. I can read about the stories I want to read about without having to sift through the crap.

Celebublogs:
Celeb blogs aren't news. I really don't care about all these celebrities. Do I care who's doing and who and who's snorting what? NO! But there is a large population of people who do, which is sad. Occasionally, someone will send me a link to Perez Hilton that makes fun of a celebrity that I don't care for, and sure that's amusing, but it is most definitely not news. Since more and more people care about this stupid celebrity circus, more stories are coming on news stations about them. It still doesn't mean I watch or care. If I cared, I'd read the silly tabloids while waiting in line at the grocery store.

VNRs

I think that VNRs are unethical. I think it is wrong that PR companies and television stations are pushing viewers into buying or doing something that promotes their business. It disturbs me that when I watch the local news station that I have to think to myself is that a real segment or is it a VNR, since a local station in OKC has had many VNRs on their station. I also think that it is an easy way for the news station to fill some air time when they don;t have a segment ready.

VNR's

I think VNR's are a pretty unethical thing for a news station to put on air as if it is something they put together themselves. It is stuff like this that makes people not trust the news on tv. It is the very essence of why people don't watch the news.

VNR's

I beleive that VNR's should not be broadcast in the news without the public first being notified. It is not fair that the audience doesn't know that they are receiving a "built-in" ad in their daily news coverage. To me it is almost a type of subliminal advertising, especially when the news stations don't let their viewers know what they are doing. Obviously the news stations are being paid to air the VNR's, which once again goes against the ethics of good journalism. News shouldn't be something that is bought and sold, but something that is important to people locally and nationally. I was also shocked to see that KOKH FOX 25 in OKC had shown so many VNR's. I would bet though that news stations with lower ratings are more likely to air VNR's for the money.