I’m keep thinking about the cartoon of the 3-years-old Syrian who died. And how my reaction was different. I automatically saw a parody of the racist attitude during the immigrant crisis in Europe that was occurring at that time. A political claim directed to the Europe to do better. Which I would not have seen if I have stopped to the words used (don’t get me wrong: taken literally, I find it inadmissible). Satire or racist? I said satire*, others said racist. Had the magazine gone too far? We saw in class how difficult it was to answer that question. If it was a written editorial, it would have been easier to judge. We analyze an image with our personal and cultural bias which makes it subjective. We have to find the objective “real true” message. I don’t know what the true intention of Riss’ artwork from Charlie Hebdo was. I know Riss wrote editorial on the immigrant crisis, but I did not find it. But we have to recognize that even though it was deliberately provocative, it created a greater public interest around immigrant crisis and open a discourse on the issue in 2015. And personally, I think is good as long the initial intention was a satire and view as reasonable person standard.
*I read few articles on that particular drawing and publication of Charlie Hebdo at the same period, I feel relieved that I was not the only one who saw a critic/mockery of the Europe’s response.
This week the United States blocked the takeover of Qualcom, a U.S. company by Broadcom, a Singaporean company, ostensibly on national security grounds.
Canada has had Canadian ownership rules in both broadcasting and telecom in place for a very, very long time.
For years it appeared that the Canadian government was planning to allow non-Canadians to control licensed Canadian Telecom companies (but not broadcasters). However when trial balloons were floated Canadians tended to react negatively. The advantage in theory would be lower prices…
So what do you think, do the advantage of foreign ownership relaxation outweigh the concerns?
I came across more AI news ! A local checkpoint in Beijing has just started using new technology , smart glasses that can pick up facial features and car registration plates, and match them in real-time with a database of suspects. The glasses are AI powered and if the glasses pick up anyone on the system’s blacklist they start communicating the message through light up warnings.
This is an example of a country using technology to booster security while severely infringing citizen privacy rights. However the AI company that created the glasses state that people should not be worried about privacy rights because the glasses are being used for noble causes.
Other technologies China has employed include police robots for crowd control, drones to monitor border areas, and artificially intelligent systems to track and censor behavior online. There are also scanners to forcibly read mobile phone data and even police dogs with virtual reality cameras.
If its being done in China – how long do you think it will take for it to reach here? Would Canadians be willing to compensate privacy rights for the ” greater good” and fighting crime?
With the Oscars this past Sunday I thought it would be interesting to see what the TV ratings were for such a major awards show. It turns out that no matter how big the event – streaming seems to be taking over the TV industry and its nothing different from what we have discussed before in this class.
This article highlights how even ratings for the Grammys dropped 24% this past year, the Super Bowl hit a 7-year low and the Oscars had a rating drop of 16% from the 22.4 rating produced by last year’s telecast – this is a drop of 26.5 million viewers.
I thought it would also be interesting to highlight the amount of Netflix films that were nominated , a total of 8, this again displays streaming and the Internet’s dominance – which of course was already proven with Manchester by the Sea, Amazon’s movie win last year.
Loading ...
