In the first decade of the twenty-first century, both individual lives and society were shaped by capitalist crisis and the rise of social media. But what marks the distinctively social character of "social media"? And how does it relate to the wider social and economic context of contemporary capitalism? The concept of Corporate Social Responsibility CSR is based on the idea that a socially responsible capitalism is possible; this suggests that capitalist media corporations can not only enable social interaction and cooperation but also be socially responsible. This book provides a critical and provocative perspective on Corporate Social Responsibility CSR in media and communication industries. It examines both the academic discourse on CSR and actual corporate practices in the media sector, offering a double critique that reveals contradictions between corporate interests and social responsibilities.
|Published (Last):||24 February 2015|
|PDF File Size:||12.94 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.71 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
He sees information as being better managed by public service non-profit bodies, in the same way as the Human Genome Project was run, with free access across international borders, for the betterment of all humankind.
In theory, this idea seems fine. In practice, it ignores that we are humans; delightfully heterogeneous humans. Vaidhyanathan is working from a modernist paradigm where there is a truth that can be rationally determined and prioritized, under a Western, individualistic framing.
Because Google filters, orders, and sorts information for us it is, to him, fundamentally flawed. However, all systems for organizing information must determine a way of sorting and classifying it. This includes the Human Genone Project. At the most basic level, all those involved in the HGP were in agreement that the human genome could and should be mapped.
The views of those who interrogated the ethical implications of the HGP sat outside of the project. The group saw ethical concerns as unrelated to the basic key task of mapping the human genome. Opinions which sat outside of these specific concerns of the HGP were sorted, classified, and filtered by being excluded completely.
Ethical considerations of the HGP are not nebulous or theoretical: in the genome of a Papuan man was patented without his knowledge. You could order some of Henrietta Lack online right now, if you want. She did not consent to this use of her body: she was never offered the opportunity to do so.
Her family did not know any of this until the s. They have received no material benefits from the vast profits generated by these patents. Framing the HGP as a benificent and objective group of people working together for no personal gain is either fundamentally naive or egregiously misleading.
I see a problem in that he misleads the reader about the historical and contemporary role and structure of universities. He states that Google is a company of years standing, while his employer, the University of Virginia, "has been succeeding at its mission since Thomas Jefferson founded it in " p.
The UofVa. What then, is the mission of the UofVa? According to their website "The central purpose of the University of Virginia is to enrich the mind by stimulating and sustaining a spirit of free inquiry directed to understanding the nature of the universe and the role of mankind in it.
Despite knowing their actions were illegal the UofVa. Women were not fully admitted until , and were not allowed to matriculate until , after a lawsuit.
So, no, the university has not been fulfilling its mission since Unless "a spirit of free enquiry" means "a spirit of free white male enquiry". At least for those who can afford tuition, or who are willing to mortgage their future earnings. I mean, as Vaidhyanathan states, universities have "overwhelming endorsement from their market: the best of them turn away four to ten times the number of applicants they admit".
And a university education "succeeds in the sense of propelling many graduates and their families into the middle class or higher" p. Only maybe not. While it is still better to be a college graduate than not , graduates are notably underemployed and finding the job market not the cakewalk it used to be for those with degrees. At the same time universities are likely to take graduate success as a result of the efficacy of a university education , rather than of the qualities inherent in the graduate themselves.
This has lead to ongoing discussion among academics and economists about the purpose, structure, and future of universities. A contributing factor is the fact that the middle class is declining in America and other Western nations.
But is a white-collar job truly the purpose of a university? Does propelling graduates into the middle-classes mean we should give universities control of our information systems, instead of Google? If the purpose of a university is taking tuition money in return for a piece of paper that gives the holder a better CV, does that not make a university just a different kind of corporate entity?
The very concept of a university as being a non-profit public service is outmoded. Academics and administrators are under more pressure than ever before to bring in external funding to secure their jobs.
In the Uof Va. Teaching is increasingly carried out by grad students, freeing tenured staff for profit-making activities. Vaidhyanathan draws a distinction between a for-profit, Google, and a not-for-profit, the university system, that is unwarranted: it is a difference of degree, not kind, and a difference that is rapidly disappearing.
Vaidhyanathan sees the idea of personalized results as inherently flawed. In any information system which reflects the panoply of human experience how would it ever be possible not to sort and order information relating to any topic, accepting that there are many truths? The solution for this is not for universities to have control of information sources, but rather for humans to be educated about how information is categorized and sorted in different systems, to develop a joy in learning and an ability to think critically, and for kids to learn effective searching techniques as a basic life skill, in the same way they learn how to cook and change a car tyre.
Google gives us more of what we want. In a perfect world would I search for Nike running shoes and get an article about forced child labour, rather than a local stockist? How would we determine what a searcher should see? I think this is a book that people should read, because information is power.
It is important to make ourselves informed consumers of information; to able to judge the quality of our access and of the information itself.
Googlization Of Everything
He sees information as being better managed by public service non-profit bodies, in the same way as the Human Genome Project was run, with free access across international borders, for the betterment of all humankind. In theory, this idea seems fine. In practice, it ignores that we are humans; delightfully heterogeneous humans. Vaidhyanathan is working from a modernist paradigm where there is a truth that can be rationally determined and prioritized, under a Western, individualistic framing. Because Google filters, orders, and sorts information for us it is, to him, fundamentally flawed. However, all systems for organizing information must determine a way of sorting and classifying it.
According to Harro Haijboer, Googlization seems to be an undisputed term, most of the time the term is taken for fact without critically investigating it. My main questions are if the term Googlization is correct in a historical perspective? I suspected to find evidence that both search engines Microsoft and Google have had their influence onto each other. There is no way of saying if Googlization has fully taken place on Microsoft search or that there has been a form of "Microsoftization" on the part of Google. In this light the term Googlization seems to be inappropriate and should be rethought of. Googlization can also mean that ever "increasing amounts of accessible information [are] available on the Internet; Google makes it easy and convenient to find in one place", however, Google only makes information which already exists more accessible, rather than creating new information.