Media Magazine: Globalisation case study
1) Why was Google Glass controversial?
The major thing that made Google Glass controversial was the fact that users/customers were afraid that the glass's (due to their 5 megapixel camera) were recording everything they were looking at, their locations and invading their privacy. Furthermore, it is said that the device has the capability to record the user's conversation, meaning it can record conversations (can be without the user's consent) which will be breaching privacy policies.
2) What are the positive elements to Globalisation that the article highlights?
One of the major positive elements is the fact that wider audience can have access to the internet. For example, Google had launched various balloons which had internet antennas attached to them, what this did was it gave some parts of New Zealand (which do not have internet access) the ability to access the internet for the first time. Another positive factor is that it will allow individuals to make informed decisions.3) What are potential negatives to Globalisation?
There will be way too much competition on the online servers, that smaller companies who have the intention to break that barrier, cannot simply do so due to the more dominant firms taking majority of the market share. For example, companies such as Amazon or Ebay are businesses that dominate the shopping market in the online world, making it nearly impossible for smaller firms to compete with them due to the stronger branding and powerful publicity the internet can offer.
4) What is a techno-panic? How does it link to moral panics?
Issues with the privacy of the device has risen some concerns. The device has the ability to record ones voice and sound nearby as well as record the movement of the user. What is worrying, is that firms such as Google are now trying to invade peoples privacy with the new products their create. This is clearly evident with the Google Glass product, as it has the camera qualities and sound recording mode.
5) What is your opinion on the privacy debate and major corporations being able to access large
quantities of personal data?
I believe that us consumers have to be aware of this technological crisis and need to tackle it in a suitable manor. For example, boycotting the product (and has seen to be quite successful in the past) where the business is inclined to listen to the views of the users and take that forward. Its quote common that privacy invasion has occurred ever since the internet was born, and with every new and fresh technology device, comes a new way of breaching privacy policy for example, finger print scanning. Or even GPS data, these are all things that are 'good' in the eyes of the consumers, but is valuable for the big institutions.
Media Factsheet: Globalisation and capitalism
1) Who coined the phrase 'a global village' and what multinational companies illustrate this?
The Global Village concept was developed by Marshall McLuhan and is where countries become interconnected and independent especially in economic terms. An example of multinational companies that illustrate this idea of 'global village' would be news paper organisation such as the BBC. These online newspapers have had a tremendous impact on the print paper institutions making them shut down rapidly.
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?
Capitalism is when there is no free movement of goods and service's with other countries, and 'only' occurs within the country keeping its domestic businesses safe and money within the economy. The reason this links to Marxism is the fact that big named institutions are exploiting the liberal classes in the West by drawing up a perception of helping the 'endangered world' through their brand image. This is clearly linked to Marxism as the powerful ones at the top of the chain want to control the minds of the lower class and gain revenue from it.
3) What does 'capitalism with a conscience' mean?
Global media has raised awareness about social issues, but in order to sustain (to keep hold of) Western capitalist dominance, institutions have created a marketing campaign that construct this idea of 'capitalism with a conscience'.
4) What is the (PRODUCT) RED campaign?
it was created to engage the private sector in raising awareness and funds to help eliminate AIDS in Africa.
The RED Brand is not a product in itself, rather it is a brand licensed to partner companies such as Nike, American Express (UK), Apple Inc, Starbucks, Converse, Bugaboo, Penguin Classics (UK & International), Gap, Emporio Armani, Hallmark (US) and Dell.
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 believe it is a good way of trying to tackle diseases such as aids, however does have elements of where it is trying to build this 'capitalism with a conscience-esk' theme. The idea of aiming at all these big name institutions really delivers a message that, that's who they ultimately want to partner with, and not any of the lower charity organisations. It may be that they want to ensure that big corporations play their part in sharing their profit for better change, but their is that side of the argument where it can seem as a cynical way of trying make the institutions seem more ethical by slapping the charity brand over their sponsors.
