Media Magazine: Globalisation case study
Go to our Media Magazine archive and click on MM47 - page 31 Google Glass feature: a case study in Globalisation.
1) Why was Google Glass controversial?
Google Glass was a pair of glasses that acted as your mobile phone and provides you with all the functions that you'd expect- some of the features can be accessed through voice interaction and a display screen located on one of the lenses. It was seen as controversial as, Google, which ultimately dominates the internet, was making or attempting to make developments that were out of the ordinary e.g "Project Loon" - large balloons fitted with radio antenna devices which were released into the air to float above areas to New Zealand without access to the internet- allowing those who did not have internet to do so.
2) What are the positive elements to Globalisation that the article highlights?
The world has become more accessible and people are "enriched by getting to know and understand it better." There are increased choices and opportunities and access to information can enhance our ability to make informed decisions.
3) What are potential negatives to Globalisation?
There are debates about the concentration of ownership and the possibility that smaller companies have little or no hope of staking a claim on the global market as they wont be able to compete. Therefore the "increased choices and opportunities" are therefore provided by a limited number of companies who dominate the global market and only distribute the majority of the worlds wealth amongst themselves.
4) What is a techno-panic? How does it link to moral panics?
A techno-panic is a moral panic that revolves around fears regarding technological activity or specific contemporary technology. It links to moral panics as it highlights a fear/concern within society that is often
exaggerated or "stirred up" by the media.
5) What is your opinion on the privacy debate and major corporations being able to access large quantities of personal data?
I think that it can be argued both ways, but ultimately I believe that major companies should not be able to access large quantities of personal data. No matter how important or dominant the company is, any organisation can be hacked or disrupted. The article mentions that in August 2013, " all Google online services were unavailable for approximately five minutes", ultimately resulting in web traffic around the world dropping by "a staggering 40%". This therefore shows us that the companies that essentially run our digital world, can be affected by the slightest error which could've led to a possible data breach. However it is difficult for us to place restrictions on some things as we rely on major corporations too much to not let them have access to our data- they need this information in order to make new technological developments that improve our daily lives.
Media Factsheet: Globalisation and capitalism
Factsheet 92: Globalisation
1) Who coined the phrase 'a global village' and what multinational companies illustrate this?
"A Global Village" coined by McLuhan, is where countries become interconnected or more independent, essentially in economic terms. Multinational corporations such as Coca- Cola, Google and Microsoft illustrate this.
2) What role does Slavoj Zizek suggest the media plays in global capitalism? How can you link this to our previous work on Marxism and Hegemony?
Zizek argues that the media masks the way in which western institutions "do business". He argues that the media reinforces and naturalises the ideology that making money is the right way of conducting businesses, but at the same time allows people to feel less guilty about how the goods are produced. This links to Marxism and hegemony as it shows how major institutions essentially manipulate the way in which we see how businesses work. We are indoctrinated with the idea that these businesses are making money from products
3) What does 'capitalism with a conscience' mean?
It means that major organisations campaign and raise awareness on certain issues but still maintain their "Western capital dominance".
4) What is the (PRODUCT) RED campaign?
The campaign was founded in 2006 by Bono, an activist and a member of the band U2. It was created to "engage the private sector in raising awareness and funds to help eliminate AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Donations are given to the charity through RED money, which is linked to the brand PRODUCT Red. The brand is licenced to partner companies such as Nike, American Express (UK), Apple, and many more. When a partner company creates a product with (PRODUCT) RED a percentage of the company's profit is given to the Global
Fund. Also since (PRODUCT) RED is a private company a portion of the contributions is taken as profit.
5) Based on what you've read in the Factsheet, what is YOUR opinion of the (PRODUCT) RED brand? Is it a positive force helping to fight AIDS in Africa or a cynical attempt to make multinational companies look more ethical than they actually are?
I think it is an attempt to make multinational companies look more ethical than they actually are, as they appear to be helping out with AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, when in fact some of the money they make through the organisation is kept for themselves. The article mentions that the RED campaign essentially spent more on advertising than it has donated to the charity.
1) Why was Google Glass controversial?
Google Glass was a pair of glasses that acted as your mobile phone and provides you with all the functions that you'd expect- some of the features can be accessed through voice interaction and a display screen located on one of the lenses. It was seen as controversial as, Google, which ultimately dominates the internet, was making or attempting to make developments that were out of the ordinary e.g "Project Loon" - large balloons fitted with radio antenna devices which were released into the air to float above areas to New Zealand without access to the internet- allowing those who did not have internet to do so.
2) What are the positive elements to Globalisation that the article highlights?
The world has become more accessible and people are "enriched by getting to know and understand it better." There are increased choices and opportunities and access to information can enhance our ability to make informed decisions.
3) What are potential negatives to Globalisation?
There are debates about the concentration of ownership and the possibility that smaller companies have little or no hope of staking a claim on the global market as they wont be able to compete. Therefore the "increased choices and opportunities" are therefore provided by a limited number of companies who dominate the global market and only distribute the majority of the worlds wealth amongst themselves.
4) What is a techno-panic? How does it link to moral panics?
A techno-panic is a moral panic that revolves around fears regarding technological activity or specific contemporary technology. It links to moral panics as it highlights a fear/concern within society that is often
exaggerated or "stirred up" by the media.
5) What is your opinion on the privacy debate and major corporations being able to access large quantities of personal data?
I think that it can be argued both ways, but ultimately I believe that major companies should not be able to access large quantities of personal data. No matter how important or dominant the company is, any organisation can be hacked or disrupted. The article mentions that in August 2013, " all Google online services were unavailable for approximately five minutes", ultimately resulting in web traffic around the world dropping by "a staggering 40%". This therefore shows us that the companies that essentially run our digital world, can be affected by the slightest error which could've led to a possible data breach. However it is difficult for us to place restrictions on some things as we rely on major corporations too much to not let them have access to our data- they need this information in order to make new technological developments that improve our daily lives.
Media Factsheet: Globalisation and capitalism
Factsheet 92: Globalisation
1) Who coined the phrase 'a global village' and what multinational companies illustrate this?
"A Global Village" coined by McLuhan, is where countries become interconnected or more independent, essentially in economic terms. Multinational corporations such as Coca- Cola, Google and Microsoft illustrate this.
2) What role does Slavoj Zizek suggest the media plays in global capitalism? How can you link this to our previous work on Marxism and Hegemony?
Zizek argues that the media masks the way in which western institutions "do business". He argues that the media reinforces and naturalises the ideology that making money is the right way of conducting businesses, but at the same time allows people to feel less guilty about how the goods are produced. This links to Marxism and hegemony as it shows how major institutions essentially manipulate the way in which we see how businesses work. We are indoctrinated with the idea that these businesses are making money from products
3) What does 'capitalism with a conscience' mean?
It means that major organisations campaign and raise awareness on certain issues but still maintain their "Western capital dominance".
4) What is the (PRODUCT) RED campaign?
The campaign was founded in 2006 by Bono, an activist and a member of the band U2. It was created to "engage the private sector in raising awareness and funds to help eliminate AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Donations are given to the charity through RED money, which is linked to the brand PRODUCT Red. The brand is licenced to partner companies such as Nike, American Express (UK), Apple, and many more. When a partner company creates a product with (PRODUCT) RED a percentage of the company's profit is given to the Global
Fund. Also since (PRODUCT) RED is a private company a portion of the contributions is taken as profit.
5) Based on what you've read in the Factsheet, what is YOUR opinion of the (PRODUCT) RED brand? Is it a positive force helping to fight AIDS in Africa or a cynical attempt to make multinational companies look more ethical than they actually are?
I think it is an attempt to make multinational companies look more ethical than they actually are, as they appear to be helping out with AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, when in fact some of the money they make through the organisation is kept for themselves. The article mentions that the RED campaign essentially spent more on advertising than it has donated to the charity.
Comments
Post a Comment