Corporate U: The relationship between business and academia

Corporate U
Thursday, April 24 2008 by Frank Stasio and Olympia Stone

The relationship between business and academia has always been uneasy. Corporate funding accounts for a small percentage of all university research funds--seven percent of the total--but that percentage has grown more rapidly than any other in the past decade. So, is the privatization of the public universities at our doorstep? Kurt Smith, associate professor in the Department of Philosophy at Bloomsburg University in Pennsylvania, and WUNC Education Reporter Dave DeWitt join host Frank Stasio to talk about the corporatization of higher education.

Use the following to listen to the archive of this talk:
http://wunc.org/tsot/archive/sot0424a08.mp3/view


I heard this story on NPR's "The State of Things" yesterday. Although I had come to some of the same conclusions, it was very interesting to hear it explained from the perspective of marketing and economic consumerism.

Anti-CNN.com

http://www.anti-cnn.com/

I heard about this on NPR this morning. It's a site run by an independent activist inside China that attempts to point out the anti-Chinese bias in the Western media that surrounds the Tibet protest issue. I am personally of mixed opinion about the Tibet issue, but I think it probably has garnered disproportionate attention in the West, especially given the much, much worse abuses of human rights and international law that occur throughout the world. I have never quite understood why so many people are up in arms over Tibet but never mention word one about Chinese weapons sales to Zimbabwe or oil deals with Sudan, two countries with absolutely deplorable human rights records. Anyway, I just wanted to toss this up here it show a different view of events. Media should always be subject to scrutiny, and God knows what you read in the paper or see on CNN is often not the "whole" story.

GOP Debates Show Some Surprising Wit and Intellect--Media Ignores It

When I navigated to the CNN stories about the debates this mornings I was not surprised to find that the major topics of conversation were 1) Giuliani's interruption by lightning; 2) Tancredo's rejection of Bush ever playing a role in his (unlikely) administration ; 3) McCain's rather impassioned defense of his immigration bill; and 4) Mitt Romney's hair. This is pretty much business as usual. Major media outlets have already cast their lots with the candidates, made their predictions, and now must do all they can to reinforce the notion that they can "pick 'em" by maneuvering conversation, debate, and attention toward those few candidates (same with the Democrats by the way). Candidates like McCain and Giuliani started out with lots of name recognition and deep pockets, so they were early front runners and grabbed the spotlight. Romney, slick and conservative, has been the religious voters choice it seems and so he has successfully improved his standing despite the table scraps the media fed him initially. At this point he is almost a viable candidate in the eyes of pundits , media analysts, and "journalists." But what of the other candidates? Almost totally ignored.

And here is the rub: In last night's debate Ron Paul, the (way) outsider candidate among Republicans showed wit and intellect, expressed knowledge and comprehension of the issues, and articulated clear and informed policy prescriptions based on a coherent platform of open market ideology and deference to the constitution--he is a stalwart libertarian. I very much disagree with Paul a number of issues, not least of which is the supposed benevolence and benefits of unrestricted capitalism, but I do respect many of his positions. Chief among these was his position on preemptive war. I must say I was very impressed with his response to the question "What is America's most pressing moral issue?" While the other candidates were falling all over each other to talk about abortion, Paul flatly stated that the doctrine of preemptive war adopted by the current administration was the most pressing issue because of the damage it has done to US standing in the world, our alliances, our security, and to innocent people overseas. He may have even mentioned international law, but I can't exactly recall.

While I disagree with him on lots of issues--but let's face it, I don't support anybody who was up there--I thought that his performance was head an shoulders above the rest. CNN, however, as well as almost all other major US media outlets and their pundits, failed to give any notable mention to Paul. Rather, they gorged themselves on the inane rhetoric of the rest of the pack. This would seem to put CNN and the others out of touch with viewers and voters, though, as respondents to the (non-scientific) CNN.com poll showed a clear victory for Paul. As of 8 am 54% of voters (out of 10,500) on the site chose Paul as the clear victor. Moreover, he received the most votes in 4 other categories.

The point is, if candidates like Paul can generate support among voters, and if viewers respond so favorably to them in debates, why do media outlets tend to ignore them? Why have CNN, MSNBC, and FOX virtually edited Paul out of their coverage of not only the debate, but the campaign in general. Does he even show up on most polls? At least the BBC noticed...sort of (thanks Pope): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6725393.stm

Just a Sick Reality Show...or an Insightful Commentary?

A Dutch TV station says it will go ahead with a programme in which a terminally ill woman selects one of three patients to receive her kidneys.

Political parties have called for The Big Donor Show to be scrapped, but broadcaster BNN says it will highlight the country's shortage of organ donors.

"It's a crazy idea," said Joop Atsma, of the ruling Christian Democrat Party.

"It can't be possible that, in the Netherlands, people vote about who's getting a kidney," he told the BBC.

The programme, from Big Brother creators Endemol, is due to be screened on Friday night.

'Totally unacceptable'

The 37-year-old donor, identified only as Lisa, will make her choice based on the contestants' history, profile and conversation with their family and friends.

Viewers will also be able to send in their advice by text message during the 80-minute show.

When I first heard this story on the BBC this morning, I thought what a horrible, tasteless idea. Reality shows have gone too far (again). But, after listening to both sides in the debate, I wonder. The contestants have a 1 in 3 chance of getting a kidney on this show versus a 1 in 1000s on a donor list. Plus, if it and the debate surrounding it brings attention to the sad dearth of organ donors (a problem in the US as well), then maybe it will all be for the best. But still a little creepy no matter how you look it.

Oh, and they get around legal problems because in Holland a donor can choose the recipient so long as the donation is made while the donor is living. After a person dies the law stipulates it goes to the list.

Story excerpted from BBC NEWS. To read the story in its entirety, please visit:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/entertainment/6699847.stm