Fake newspaper controversy

Sometimes the news cannot be trusted...Such is the case for the March 5th Los Angeles Times front page. On the fake front page today, The Mad Hatter's face is emblazoned over news stories. The background stories are only part of the reason for a lot of people to be frustrated with the decision for Disney to advertise their new adaptation of Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland"in such a way. It came to light that the stories in question were not fake stories, but were actually printed on February 18th and 19th. The titles or other details of the original articles were altered to appear real. The other aspect is that the front page was essentially sold for advertising purposes which represented a breakdown in ethical behavior by blurring the lines of traditional front page news with advertisements.

My thoughts on this article were first of confusion and second of irritation. My thoughts did not change very much as the article went on, although I did feel somewhat more irritated afterward than I did at the beginning. I think the idea to advertise this way is hilarious and I just wish The Joplin Globe had done it too.

It seems as though if there is nothing newsworthy, there is always something someone can twist into a news story. Just like this story. The confusion came first as to why the LA Times couldn't just make up some articles to place behind The Mad Hatter's head. Surely the advertising department could come up with some funny what not's to throw behind it, like something "Alice in Wonderland" related perhaps. The use of a real story being altered in any way and then re-printed sounds an awful lot like plagiarism to me. Secondly, I was irritated because I don't understand how this article is actually newsworthy. According to the report, "Several (un named) journalists from CNN's Los Angeles bureau did not immediately realize that the real front page was inside". To this all I have to say is I bet they realized as soon as they opened the newspaper. Does anyone really care that a newspaper sold advertising space to make money? I don't care because there are more important things going on in the world.

I wonder how my grades would be if I slightly altered someone else's articles and turned them in as my own as long as I purchased their work first. Would it really be mine to mess with? My thoughts are the same with the altered stories. Yes they were purchased by the author or written for the newspaper, but is it right to attach an author's name to something that has been changed? Or to reprint an article and not pay the author anything for reproducing their work?