10 Things I [Love/Hate] About You...

The Five Things I Appreciated About "The Gay"

1) The modern facilities, and the up-to-date, if not cutting edge equipment that the college provided. After hearing Katie Curcio describe how CBS News in New York still uses Beta tapes, I felt a whole lot better about my education.

2) The quality of most of the professors is second-to-none. While I never got to know all the professors in the College, the Dana Rosengards, the Fred Blevinses, the Peter Gades, and the Robert Kerrs of the college totally made the experience of going to school here worth it. If every professor was as wonderful as these four were, I'd have deliberately flunked courses just to stay in the college.

3) The commitment by the college to continue to think bigger and better, and not be content with the status quo. Only three years removed from an expansion that would keep some schools content for decades, OU is breaking ground tomorrow on new facilities that will arguably out-pimp some of the finest JMC schools in the country.

4) The comfy couches in the lounge. Many a peaceful nap have been had on those over-stuffed earthly delights.

5) The fact that we were allowed to choose an emphasis and focus solely on that, without a lot of other superfluous and nonsensical busy work in order to flesh out a more generalized journalism degree.

All that being said, now my 5 complaints about what the College could've done to accommodate me more.

1) More of an emphasis on curriculum that caters specifically to radio. People may argue that radio is an antiquated medium, but with the innovations in both technology and management structure, radio is anything but. I would've liked to have learned the various automation softwares - Prophet, NexGen, AudioVAULT...as well as other software editing applications, such as Vegas or ProTools. There's far more out there in the radio industry than just Adobe Audition, and the college should reflect that.

2) For three years, I felt like my advisers were absolutely worthless. Every year, without fail, I figured out my schedule on my own, knew exactly what to take and when to take it, and the only reason I even bothered to go into Student Services was because it was required in order for my stops to be removed. With trying to get a dual-degree, it just further complicated the process, and I wish I would've been left to myself, with the option of seeking someone out if I had questions.

3) Why is KGOU not a part of the journalism college? That being said, I'm almost glad it isn't, because the station is able to operate successfully independent of Gaylord and under the jurisdiction of OCCE and the University of Oklahoma Outreach. I've seen and heard how the WiRE is neglected by the college, and am glad the same pitfalls don't exist with KGOU.

4) I wish the college did more to facilitate independent student production. I've had a lot of great ideas for various video and audio projects that I would've loved to pursue for both personal and professional reasons, and feel that as a student who has successfully demonstrated both responsibility and competence with the equipment, I should be allowed to go after these endeavors. I understand that equipment is limited, but with the Gaylord family in our pockets, and the unlimited monetary recruiting potential of President Boren, shouldn't we benefit from that somehow?

5) Adding onto that, the bureaucratic red tape that exists with the cage, which professors outside the broadcast sequence should be made aware of. We were required to make a video presentation for Mass Comm Law, and thank God one of my partners was in ENG, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to rent a camera, because my class schedule did not clear me for it. I'm sure this is a minor fix, but the faculty and staff should work hand-in-hand to ensure that all of the students who may ever need to use the college's equipment have the opportunity to do so.

Spanking Geraldo, I mean violence in the media

I think that the media should be careful on what they air. Granted I am a lover of blood and gore (not Al Gore) but not everyone is. I think that they should not air a dead body or a murder on the air, but they need to at least show some of the scene or the aftermath. As an editor, I cant show blood or a dead body, but I try to show as much other stuff as I can so that the viewer at home at least knows what happened.

THIS POST WAS APPROVED BY THE WEBMASTER OF WWW.GREGORYPSHERMAN.COM

Violence in the Media

Living in a democracy I believe it is important to let citizens make their own decisions on what they choose to do and in this case to watch. This is a free country and as a result we can express ourselves however we please. This does not mean that children should be subjected to violence on television or in the movies. Television and music ratings are there to regulate that, but that was last week's discussion. I think that violence in the news is very relevant and absolutely should be shown simply because it is reality. Why would we want to live in a world where the media witholds details from the general public. Using the tragedy at Virginia Tech as an example, while the nature of the murderer's acts as well as his video tape were extremely violent it is important for the nation to witness this so they know what exactly went on and are fully aware that this type of anger and violence is still present in our current society. One may argue that repetitive airing of these incidents may encourage "copycats" or may severely damage the public's psyche, the fact is there are many more American citizens who learn from these acts and are overcome with a desire for change or a will to help sick individuals capable of such violence. Any person that is inspired to repeat violent acts they see on tv or in the movies was a threat to society long before they received "inspiration".
Violence in the movies of course is not real, so one may claim that there is no constructive reasoning for such violent movies or scenes. But the fact is, it is entertaining. People love to see violence in the movies. But this is not because they want to repeat what they see, instead it is because it is an imaginitive world for many people because the majority of people are not violent. It sparks curiosity and excitement. Once an individual reaches a certain maturity they know better than to be influenced by violence in the media. If they do not, then as i stated earlier they most likely would have been a threat to society with or without violence in the media.

Rich Kids, Debauchary, and Deceitful Charlatans....too soon?

As long as we're talking about media violence...somebody should mention Budd Dwyer.

"This will hurt someone!"

I think the above link should probably never see the light of day over the public airwaves, or cable for that matter, especially when you consider that the press conference aired shortly before noon. That being said, there is a distinct difference between actual violence (like the Dwyer suicide), which should probably never be aired,and pretend violence, which can be found in movies, TV, video games, and essentially any form of media that exists, whether it be fictional or not. A lot of my posts this semester have focused on the responsibility of the news consumer, and how he or she has to be their own gatekeeper in deciding what to consume. I think the same is true in this case. The material and information should be available to those who wish to seek it out, but it is up to these individuals to make responsible choices based on their beliefs and values. The first time I saw the Dwyer suicide, it upset me a great deal, because I watched a very high-quality video of a man taking his own life. On the flip side, however, watching a movie like The Last Samurai or Pulp Fiction, where death and violence occurs that is far more graphic than the Dwyer incident, doesn't bother me in the least because I'm an intelligent person who can make the distinction between fiction and reality through the media he consumes. It's up to the public to show the same diligence. The public has a right to know, but more importantly, the public does not have the right to have information like this withheld from them if they so desire to see it.

the v-chip

I do think the v-chip is an effective means of restricting content. I think it does come down to the parents and it's their decision whether or not they will implement it. If they really do want to restrict content they will, and they will find out about the v-chip if they don't already know about it. If they're too lazy to find out about it, that's their fault and they obviously don't care so much about what their children watch.

I would definitely use it if I needed to, but I hope I raise children that do not even look for content that I would not want them to watch. I would hope that my children obey what I tell them and if something is not acceptable I would not have to go to such extremities as to implementing this v-chip.

V-Chip

This system only works if the parents use it. But do parents know it's out there? Would they know how to use it? Those are questions I have. The tv rating system is a good ranking system for parents to have an idea of what would be good for their kids. I do not believe the kids themselves use the system. I think seeing the higher rankings as well as identifying that they have access to those shows will only make them want to watch them more. Kids are curious little humans. But, that's where the v-chip is suppose to come into play. I just don't think parents are willing to screw around with it. Broadcasters should be a little more aware of when kids have good access to tv which means they should be careful about their scheduling. I personally wouldn't use it. I would take responsibility and watch more closely myself.

V-Chip

This system only works if the parents use it. But do parents know it's out there? Would they know how to use it? Those are questions I have. The tv rating system is a good ranking system for parents to have an idea of what would be good for their kids. I do not believe the kids themselves use the system. I think seeing the higher rankings as well as identifying that they have access to those shows will only make them want to watch them more. Kids are curious little humans. But, that's where the v-chip is suppose to come into play. I just don't think parents are willing to screw around with it. Broadcasters should be a little more aware of when kids have good access to tv which means they should be careful about their scheduling. I personally wouldn't use it. I would take responsibility and watch more closely myself.

V Chip

I think the v-chip is not that effective. Parents have to step up and use it more often for it to be useful.
They are possibly a little too preoccupied to take care of this very needed v-chip.
*Who am I kidding?...I don't think the parents have to put a v-chip on their tv. It's up to the media to be careful in what they say and do...and quit being so vulgar.

What happened to the good ol days when married couples slept in separate beds, you never heard a cuss word...etc!

Shrek, the movie, even ties in funny little secrets/jokes for the older group of watchers!!

What is up with that? I love it...but what if the kids understand the jokes? That's not right!
Anyway...I'm excited about today's presentation!

V-chip

I'd like to think that the V-chip is an effective way of protecting kids from inappropriate content, but it's not. I just see alot of ways of getting around it. The most important one being that some parents don't even know they exist and some don't know how to use it. Kids these days are alot smarter than we think and are definitely smarter than us when we were that age. If they don't watch it at their own homes, who's to say that they can't at a friend's house???
I think that ratings and the v-chip could regulate what kids watch but to my understanding it's not widely known. With parents' hectic schedule, I don't think that they would all actually take time to figure out how to work the v-chips, which shows to censor, etc.
If I was a parent I would probably try the v-chip but I would not rely on it solely.

"Daaaaaaaad!!! V-Chip! V-Chip!!!"

As the two blogs stated, the V-Chip is only as effective as the parents using it. I think the criticism is accurate, and that the V-Chip is probably not user-friendly enough to appeal to all parents who want to regulate what their children watch. I don't think the TV ratings affect what kids watch because a child is not going to shut off a program he or she wants to watch simply because it's been forbidden by the parents based on an arbitrary rating system. When I was younger I would only want to watch programs more (The Simpsons), if my parents had forbidden me from watching them. Since many parents simply use the television as a babysitter for their children anyway, and usually don't watch programs with them, I think the V-Chip is probably not effective, and raises another, larger issue about lazy parenting in a digital age.

Wikipedia

I have used wikipedia alot of times but that doesn't necessarily mean that I consider it as a credible source. It gives me a pretty good idea about what something is and then I go from there. I don't think that we should use wiki as our sole source of information especially when it comes to papers we write in class and all other important documents that we happen to work on.
I think it's useful but not very credible. Just like what everyone else has mentioned, we don't know who's posting what and where they even get their information.
Going back to the question...yes i would use wiki for one of my papers. I wouldn't cite it but i would look elsewhere for more information as well.

Wiki

I would not use or cite information from wikipedia for one of my papers or essays. I do not think it's a credible source, and I also believe that my professor would feel the same way, hence don't use the source.

This doesn't mean that wikipedia doesn't have good information and isn't reliable. I think it usually provides a good overview of what you need and can be informative. However, if you don't look elsewhere at other sources to verify and gain more insight that's your own fault. I don't think this just relates to wikipedia, it's everything. You can't just take one person's or one website's opinion/information. You should gain more perspective.

Wiki Diki Dock

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information. Anyone can post anything about any topic and you have no idea if that person is an expert in the topic or your average squirrel. It might be good to look at it for information, but you need to find better sources to verify it.

THIS POST WAS APPROVED BY THE WEBMASTER OF WWW.GREGORYPSHERMAN.COM

Wikipedia

More often than not in a paper, I use Wikipedia to gain a quick, broad, and general understanding of the topic before I go off and actually research it. As far as citing something in a paper, normally what I do when there's a fact that I feel I need to reference, I'll find out where the author of the Wiki got their information, and cite that source, rather than the Wiki itself. I have little doubt there's a bias by most professors about the credibility of a Wikipedia entry, and I feel that most professors view it as a lazy research tool and a cop-out from finding a real source.

As far as the credibility of Wikipedia, I think the Web site is pretty straightforward, and most users can get a good sense of what's reliable and what's not. Most of the noteworthy articles on Wikipedia have detailed outlines and notations, and the site's administrator's will flag or remove most articles that have not passed their screening process. Much like with the Gatekeeper presentation, it really is up to the consumer or user to decide what he or she deems credible.

WIK

I like using wikipedia... however, I don't think it is 100% credible. Most of the information is true. At least I always thought. But after reading Monica and Jared's websites...I realize that wikipedia can be changed by anyone and everyone.

Who wants to consider something that can be changed by the public truthful? I sure don't!

I don't have much else to say on this topic...but I hope to get a better understanding after the presentation tomorrow!

WIKIPEDIA

Conceptaully, Wikipedia is the ideal web site. This is a site in which anyone can access any information they desire from the perspective of human beings without a corporate bias. While anything can be posted on this cite and appear true, it is a fact that the site may provide false information. But, as a whole I would call Wikipedia a pretty realiable source. Every time I have had to use the site, I have been provided with adequate information. I sometimes run across sentences or phrases that appear to be a bit opinionated, but these are not hard to spot. I use Wikipedia as a source to understand the basic knowledge of a particular subject or person. I do not rely on the specific details wikipedia provides. But if I am just wanting a quick understadning of what something is or who someone is, Wikipedia is great.
I would cite this website in a paper when referring to something that is simple and not to detailed, but I would not use it as a major source in a paper. This is simply because the margin for error is a bit higher with this site than a scholarly journal for example. This is not a bad thing for the site, just a cautionary action. Statments and articles in scholarly journals are 100% proved true, while wikipedia, as i said, is not. A teacher may be less willing to take information from Wikipedia seriously than if it were from a scholarly journal or magazine. When writing a paper i am concerned with making it entirely accurate. Wikipdeia though is a great tool for gaining instant knowledge on a particular subject.

Fair Use ETC..

Fair use and parody is definitely a good excuse to get out of a libel suit that is approaching.

I understand that ppl think everyone should all create original material ON their own...HOWEVER...how much fun would that be?
NONE!!!

I don't know about everyone else...but I like hearing an older song turned new witha new beat!

Where would SNL or MADTV be without parody and fair use? WE like making fun of ppl....who doesn't? It's hilarious. I mean...to an extent...
Jokes are made to be funny...and parody is FUNNY!

Fair use...let's us take something that is "so-so"...and turn it into something HILARIOUS with the right person!!!

MUSIC

I can see why many pple think making music online available to the public can be cost worthy to the artists...but I, however do not.
I think all in all getting music out there for everyone to hear can help the artist and his/her sales.

If I listen to an artists album online ...decide I like it....then my chances of going and buying the CD are greater(that is of course...if I like MORE than just one song).

In a way online music helps the consumer and the artist. It helps the consumer...b/c we may only like 1-2 songs of a particular artist...so why waist all my money on the whole $17 CD when I'm only going to listen to those 1-2 songs?

Fair Use

As well as the last topic, I agree with a few of my classmates. I personally don't understand how fair use and libel go together. I always associated fair use with copyright. The only way you can get out of libel is by telling the truth? I could be wrong. Dr. Kerr would not like to see senior Journalism students making this error. This being said, I am some what interested to see this presentation tomorrow.

Fair Use

I will start by mentioning that my presentation will focus more on copyright than libel so blame my intern for that one.

Meanwhile, you will have to wait for my discussion on Fair Use and copyright in the media. Not going to give away my speech in the blog.

THIS POST WAS APPROVED BY THE WEBMASTER OF WWW.GREGORYPSHERMAN.COM

Online porno I mean online music

I remember using Napster back in high school and I was able to get all my favorite songs without having to pay for it at that time. But it did get me to listen to new music and new artists and I eventually went out and bought a CD from music I first found on Napster.

I think that ITUNES will benefit independent artists in the future because it will help them reach a broader audience.

THIS POST WAS APPROVED BY THE WEBMASTER OF WWW.GREGORYPSHERMAN.COM

Music

I personally don't believe that online music programs like iTunes and Limewire have harmed the industry. Like a few of my classmates, I believe it has helped. It makes it easier and faster for music lovers to access and download their favorite artists. That to me is the only thing that has changed. The recording artists record no differently but they may promote themselves slightly differently now that they know and understand the internet. They use it to their advantage. If it will change anything in the future, it'll change how they release the music from a promotions stand point.

iTunes

Online music sharing has definitely changed the recording industry. It has probably had both negative and positive repercussions for the industry, but personally I think the effects have been mostly positive .

The most positive aspect to come out of online music sharing, as I see it, is that it has given a voice to almost anyone. Many struggling bands or up-and-coming talent now have the opportunity to get their music out there and available to the public. It's an amazing opportunity for artists and they can take full advantage of it through the Internet and online music sharing.

Another advantage is that you have quick and easy access to different music from around the world. It is difficult to find music from Australian artists in America, however, online music sharing bridges that gap and makes Australian music just a click away.

The negative repercussions of such a novelty is that sales could possibly decline. As it states in our text that we read earlier in the semster it is hard to detect whether or not this statement has any value, but it is well known that it is definitely a possibility. If online music sharing is available then why go out and buy a CD. Not only does that take time and effort but it costs money. However, there's the argument that file sharing increases audiences and therefore the music indusrty receives greater sales. I don't think either side of the argument can prove they're entirely correct, and I presume only time will tell.

Online Music

I really dont think that online distribution like Itunes has made the recording industry worse. I can't really say that it has made it all better eitherll I know is that it doesn't do as much damage as a lot of people think or say. In a lot of ways it probably has caused the decline in sales among the artists, but online distribution has made alot of records popular. There's always someone who is going to break the "rules" and deviate from the "norm."
This might not be something that record producers or artists want to happen but it will happen. I don't think that producers or artists will ever be out of jobs. I think that in the future there will be some kind of compromise and online distribution will not be so rampant because alot of music might just be more available for everyone's use.

Fair Use

I am not sure that libel and fair use go together, in fact I'm sure they don't. So I will just comment on fair use in order to stick to the topic (it is fair use isn't it??).

Anyway I think fair use is definitely justifiable when referring to copyrighted material, and I will even go further to say I think some of the restrictions upon fair use should be lifted. Especially after reading the section in our book, imagineering, I believe that we should have less restrictions over copyrighted works, etc. and more freedom. (Especially when it comes to educational purposes.)

I guess the idea of copyright makes sense but I think at times it restricts knowledge. This is a negative aspect of copyright, and could be alleviated if the law wasn't so tight on copyright. I like the idea of a somewhat free marketplace of ideas, where copyrighted works can be built upon and elaborated on.

Music Industry

From my own experiences, the online music industry has actually helped the recording industry make a more ideal consumer out of me. Aside from how easy it is to dirty your computer with a slew of viruses, adware, and spyware that can be embedded in .mp3 files, the constant threat of RIAA lawsuits for pirated music has instilled a healthy and robust fear and apprehension toward iTunes, Limewire, or any other file-sharing program on the Internet. Not only that, but for me at least, it would take little for online music consumption to get out of hand. By avoiding downloading music myself altogether, I've actually found myself going to purchase more music than I did when I actually did download. Spending $12.99 all at once is a lot easier, and a lot safer on my wallet, than the idea of constantly clicking for $.99 songs. However, I also consume music a lot differently than most consumers. I buy just as much used vinyl as I do new CDs, and it makes a hell of a lot more sense to pay $3.98 for a used, 12-inch copy of Live at Fillmore East than it does $18.99 for a new one, regardless of how important the extra Elvin Bishop track is to me. The online music industry has actually de-revolutionized music from my perspective - while practically everyone scrambles out to buy Apple's newest, Jetson-like iPod, I'm perfectly happy sitting at home like a Flintstone watching the grooves spin by.

FAIR USE

I beleieve that fair use is a "valid exscuse" to get out of a libel suit. Not only do i believe this, i know this. Someone can be rightfully sued for libel if they violate copyright laws. Legally, copyright law is not violated if fair use is properly applied or present. Therefore, fair use is a "valid exscuse" to get out of a libel suit. It is pretty cut and dry. It is valid, because the law says so. Is the law a good one or is this law fair? Well, that is an entirley different question. But in terms of its validity, the answer is yes, it is valid.

MUSIC INDUSTRY

Online music sharing with programs such as itunes has defintely changed the music industry. The ability to download music on the internet without a doubt is a big blow to record sales for musicians. When thinking about this topic I initially feel bad for the music industry and all of its hard working musicians because itunes, limewire and other music sharing programs have taken away from a big part of what the industry once was. Upon further examination however I think it is a good thing for the industry. This is because of the fact that it is much easier to access and listen to a particular musician or band's music via the internet. A consumer can listen to a song on the internet, decide if they like it and if so they can purchase the CD online, or at the store if they want to support the band that way. If they are just looking for some free music they of course can download the CD, but this may inspire them to go see a live show. While these music file sharing programs may call for a muscian to play more live shows we must ask, is this really a bad thing? Heaven forbid an artisit must do some touring to make bank. Millions upon millions of dollars are still just as available for musicians, they just may have to work a little more or get a little more creative to earn the big bucks. In an industry full of artistic expression how how is that?

Fair Use and Libel???

I'm really not sure what the question here is asking, because qualifying something as "parody" to invoke Fair Use doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Fair Use is a principle invoked in defense of copyright, not defamation. Suntrust v. Houghton Mifflin Co. involved an issue of copyright, not whether or not a "statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of [in this case a book]" (Wikipedia definition of defamation). Based on the way Greg posed the question in the e-mail, if Fair Use were to be invoked at all in a libel case, it would probably be using either the defense of opinion - which allows for claims that are inherently not falsifiable - or the defense of fair comment on a matter of public interest, which allows for "statements made with an honest belief in their truth on a matter of public interest," even if the statements are "logically unsound."

Again, Fair Use is a principle invoked in defense of copyright, not defamation. There's a lot more I'd like to say about this, however, out of respect for Ralph's request that the blogs not be used for tirades against individual people, I'll hold my tongue.

Video News Releases

I don't think that VNRs are ethical. Simply put, it is using the work of others and claiming it as theirs. These videos are created for publicity and not for informational purposes for the public. VNRs are used for advertising purposes. I think it is wrong to make people think otherwise.
At first i didn't think that VNRs really existed until I read the articles and the statistics. It does create lazy jounalism. I was shocked to find out that this is not only done to cut back on costs for editing because larger markets do this also.
It's stuff like this that makes journalists look bad. If news stations can't even do what they're supposed to do, then what exactly are they doing. It just seems that there's always a short cut to everything. It's just pure laziness.

VNRs

No VNRs are not real news and aren't ethical. Being an editor for a TV station in OKC, I see some of the packages that we put on the air since I edit them and dont believe that VNRs are real journalism.

Sort of like the Tampa Bay Devil Rays aren't a real baseball team.


GO TIGERS BEAT THE SKANKEES!

Video News Releases

No, I don't think that VNR's are ethical journalism at all. According to the Wikipedia summary of "Journalism Ethics and Standards", VNRs are unethical based on something from nearly every category of the foundations of ethical journalism. Ethical journalism is supposed to be objective, and "unequivocal separation between advertisements and news. All advertisements must be clearly identifiable as such." I watched a segment on the the Web site from FOX 25 in Oklahoma City, which framed a VNR from Chemistry.com as a news story with a lead-in and wrap-up from the anchor, and yet the VNR was nothing more than an advertisement for the dating Web site. It was not labeled as a VNR or ad, and the viewer was given no identification that it was not news done by KOKH. The fact that the package contained no identifiable footage, and was as generic as possible was he only way a viewer might have been able to tell it was a VNR. Also, according to the Wikipedia entry, "pictures, sound, and quotations must not be presented in a misleading context (or lack thereof). Simulations, reenactments, alterations, and artistic imaginings must be clearly labeled as such, if not avoided entirely." Since the piece was produced by the public relations arm of Chemistry.com, the scenes of a couple talking in a coffee shop were obviously staged, and yet there was no identification of any kind that indicated that what the viewer was seeing was not an authentic, spontaneous date.

VNR's are unethical, and they absolutely do create lazy journalism. However, the real people at fault should be the news directors and the stations who knowingly use VNR's as a part of the broadcast. They're taking the easy way out, and further damaging the reputation and integrity of the news media...an enterprise a large portion of the American public already doesn't trust to begin with. While they may be convenient, have a high production value, and make the jobs of reporters and programmers alike easier, Video News Releases and prepackaged "news" do much more of a disservice to real journalism than they do good.

VNR'S

The concept and purpose of a Video News Release is pretty cut and dry; to promote a certain idea or product on television with the intent of attracting viewers to what is being promoted. Another term for this is a commercial. While a VNR is longer and more detailed than a commercial, it is still propaganda used to persuade the general public. The difference of course between a VNR and a commercial is that VNR's are aired as if they were part of the newscast. This is where the problem with VNR's rests. VNR's, appearing as significant and relative news, allow an individual to think that what is being promoted or discussed is newsworthy on that particular day or time, when in reality it is just another advertisement. This is wrong for several reasons. First, it is deceiving to the viewer. If I as a viewer was deceived by a particular station I would not trust that station. If I do not trust a station I will not watch it for news. In theory television stations wouldn't worry about deceiving me because after all, they make it seem like part of the broadcast. But, lets be honest, a VNR is not to difficult to spot. I'm sure I've let a few slide by me in the past and believed them to be relevant news, but I seem to remember quite a few times where I have busted a station with their strictly promotional and relatively lame VNR's.
I do not think VNR's are ethical journalism because I do not think it is journalism. It is advertising. Is it unethical to make the public think it is journalism? Yes. The general public relies on the news for the most timely, relevant, and significant stories of the day. There is no need to trick the public. If a station finds the money these VNR's provide them with as such a necessity then they can air them, as long as they notify the public that it is a paid advertisment. Doing this would not by any means detract a viewer, it would just let them know what exactly they are watching. Their interest can still be gained and the goal of the VNR could still be reached. Personally, I think VNR's should be left out of newscasts all together even if they are properly identified. The 30-60 minute blocks dedicated to news on a station should be exactly that, news. But if VNR's are necessary, they should at least be acknowledged prorperly in order to maintain an audience's trust.
I do not think that VNR's create lazy journalism. I see more of a problem with the fact that they allow the financial side of broadcast news to interfere with relaying the news. Stations who air VNR's during their broadcasts are giving the message that they care more about receiving money than giving me the viewer the news. I am not denying the significance of advertising and moeny in this industry, however am I saying that if not balanced properly, the focus of a news programs objective (which should be relaying news to the public) can be easily lost. Newscasts are for news and commercials are for advertising. Combining the two just adds confusion and frustration.