Abstract
PurposeThis paper aims to uncover the assumptions and concerns driving public debates about Google Glass and police body cameras. In doing so, it shows how debates about wearable cameras reflect broader cultural tensions surrounding race and privilege.Design/methodology/approachThe paper employs a form of critical discourse analysis to discover patterns in journalistic coverage of these two technologies.FindingsPublic response to Glass has been overwhelmingly negative, while response to body cameras has been positive. Analysis indicates that this contrasting response reflects a consistent public concern about the dynamics of power and privilege in the digital economy. While this concern is well-founded, news coverage indicates that technologists, policy makers and citizens each hold assumptions about the inevitability and unvarnished beneficence of technology.Research limitations/implicationsSince this qualitative approach seeks to discern broad emergent patterns, it does not employ a quantifiable and reproducible coding schema.Practical implicationsThe article concludes by arguing that grassroots action, appropriate regulatory policy and revitalized systems of professional journalism are indispensable as the struggle for social justice unfolds in the emerging digital economy.Social implicationsThese debates represent a struggle over what and how people see. Yet public discourse often glosses over the disadvantages of technological change, which impacts who is able to amass social power.Originality/valueThis comparative approach yields unique conceptual insight into debates about technologies that augment ways of seeing.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.