Lieux et formes de pouvoir

[ruedesetoiles]

 

 

  Bonjour, voici un exposé sur le thèse 'Lieux et formes de pouvoir'. Pourriez-vous me corriger ? Merci d'avance

 

                               Power influence both the political, social and economic. It is usually a source of conflict. Therefore, it involves very often against powers. In this paper, we study three documents. The first deals with the Wikileaks affair, exposing the views of JenniferRobinson, a fervent supporter of JulianAssange, and MichaelFraser, professor going against Wikileaks. The second document is a report on the sentencing of Google. The final document reflects anger Inuit in Greenland against countries bordering the Arctic Ocean. First, we try to show how and for what purposes are exposed powers, pointing in particular what role they give to the media. Secondly, we will see how to form the against-powers and what they stand for debates.

 

 

                               In three documents, there is a very strong presence of the media. They are indeed a very popular means of communication in order to convey positions of each party. Thus, since 2010, Wikileaks uses the media, particularly the press and internet, so that confidential information it disseminates policies within the reach of all. WikiLeaks therefore uses the media to broadcast facts or secret documents.

Similarly, the media, especially the Internet, have a very important place in the document 2 on the Google case. But not for the same reason. Here, Google has used this means to collect personal information about its users. Internet is therefore a way for the group to gather information « for collecting personal data from Wi-Fi networks — including emails, web browsing histories and online banking details — from 2007 to 2010 ».

 

               These three documents together show the means to exercise power: these means are mainly the media. In contrast, purposes of these powers are very diverse. By disseminating its information, purpose claimed by Wikileaks is, first, the right of everyone to information, but also the freedom of the press and freedom of expression. These claims are the subject of much debate since 2010, as reflected in the document 1. According to JenniferRobinson, a lawyer, « WikiLeaks has made a remarkable contribution to free speech, human rights and the operation of democracy”. “As a human rights and media defence lawyer, to me it is an incontrovertible fact that WikiLeaks is a force for good, for revealing human rights abuse and protecting the human rights of journalists and their sources. ». While the dissemination of information by WikiLeaks is "a force for good", collecting information about its users, Google in turn violates the right to privacy of these. Finally, the document outlines 3 anger Inuit face the nations bordering the Arctic Ocean. Indeed, they flout also the rights of indigenous stealing their land. The reason? « Arctic waters could hold 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas”.

 

Thus, we have seen that in these three documents credentials have different goals. But the power is exercised source of conflict. Thus, it assumes a power-cons.

 

 

 

 

                               The against-powers themselves are also different in the three documents. To have violated the right to privacy of its users, Google was penalized with a fine of € 100,000 : « The $139,100 penalty — the largest ever by French body CNIL — sanctions Google for collecting personal ».

Here, the power-cons are the State, through the law, punishes Google. However, power-cons in this document 3 consists of Inuit. They use the media to express their anger: « "We paid the price of sovereignty of these governments who steal our land, our resources. Enough is enough, we don't want to be displaced by force », according AqqalukLynge, a Greenlandic politician who is the head of the Inuit circumpolar Council on the island. The Inuit therefore hold meetings in Greenland bringing together ministers of the various countries concerned to make a decision.

 

 

 

 

                As said earlier, against powers are usually sources of conflict. Therefore, they are the source of much debate. The document 1 dealing with the Wikileaks case in point. Many debates have fuelled chronic for several months, particularly on the issue of freedom of expression. Some believe that WikiLeaks is a force for good, while others think that Wikileaks broadcasts are not in the public interest.

 

 

 

 

                               Here, we studied three documents linking power and power-cons. We showed first how power is used, in particular showing the influence of the media. We then showed that this power can meet different purpose. Secondly, we have demonstrated in what ways are formed against powers, and that they feed mostly of much debate.

 

Merci pour votre aide                

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jean B]

Bonjour,

 

                               Power influences both the political, social and economic fields / domains.< 1 -s final au présent simple d'un verbe dont le sujet est singulier, c'est élémentaire. 2 Sans l'ajout d'un nom, les 3 adjectifs sont irrecevables !  It is usually a source of conflict. Therefore, it involves very often against opposing forces /  powers. In this paper, we study three documents. The first deals with the Wikileaks affair, exposing the views of Jennifer Robinson, a fervent supporter of Julian Assange, and Michael Fraser, professor going against Wikileaks. < Espace entre prénom et nom, comme en français ! The second document is a report on the sentencing of Google. The final document shows /  reflects  Inuits' anger in Greenland against countries bordering the Arctic Ocean. First, we try to show how and for what purposes powers are exposed powers, pointing in particular what role they give to the media. Secondly, we will see how to form the against opposing  forces / powers and what they stand for debates.

 

                  In three documents, there is a very strong presence of the media. They are indeed a very popular means of communication in order to convey positions of each party's position. Thus, since 2010, Wikileaks uses has used the media, particularly the press and the Internet, <Il n'y en a qu'un, il est donc forcément déterminé so that confidential information it disseminates policies within the reach of all. <??? Incompréhensible WikiLeaks therefore uses the media to broadcast facts or secret documents.

 

Similarly, the media, especially the Internet, have a very important place in the document 2 on the Google case. But not for the same reason. Here, Google has used this means to collect personal information about its users. The Internet is therefore a way for the group to gather information « for collecting personal data from Wi-Fi networks — including emails, web browsing histories and online banking details — from 2007 to 2010 ».

 

               These three documents together show the means to exercise power: these means are mainly the media. In contrast, purposes of these powers are very diverse. By disseminating its information, the purpose claimed by Wikileaks is, first, the right of everyone to information, but also the freedom of the press and freedom of expression. These claims are have been the subject of much debate since 2010, as reflected in the document 1.<present perfect avec since marquant le lien passé-présent. Voir plus haut également.  According to Jennifer Robinson, a lawyer, « WikiLeaks has made a remarkable contribution to free speech, human rights and the operation of democracy”. “As a human rights and media defence lawyer, to me it is an incontrovertible fact that WikiLeaks is a force for good, for revealing human rights abuse and protecting the human rights of journalists and their sources. ». While the dissemination of information by WikiLeaks is "a force for good", collecting information about its users, Google in turn violates the right to privacy of these. Finally, the document 3 outlines anger Inuit's anger faced with / against the nations bordering the Arctic Ocean. Indeed, they flout also the rights of indigenous natives stealing their land. The reason? « Arctic waters could hold 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas”.

 

Thus, we have seen that in these three documents credentials have different goals. But the power is exercised is a <? source of conflict. Thus, it assumes a power-cons. <? Où as-tu trouvé ça ?

 

                              The against- opposing forces / powers themselves are also different in the three documents. To have For having violated the right to privacy of its users, Google was penalized with a fine of € 100,000 : « The $139,100 penalty — the largest ever by French body CNIL — sanctions Google for collecting personal data».

 

Here, the power-cons <? are the State, through the law, punishes Google. However, power-cons in this document 3 consists of is about / deals with Inuits. They use the media to express their anger: « "We paid the price of sovereignty of these governments who steal our land, our resources. Enough is enough, we don't want to be displaced by force », according to Aqqaluk Lynge, a Greenlandic politician who is the head of the Inuit circumpolar Council on the island. The Inuit therefore hold meetings in Greenland bringing together ministers of the various countries concerned to make a decisi

 

As said earlier, against powers are usually sources of conflict. Therefore, they are the source of much debate. The document 1 dealing with the Wikileaks case in point.< ? Many debates have fuelled chronic columns / pages / news for several months, particularly on the issue of freedom of expression. Some believe that WikiLeaks is a force for good, while others think that Wikileaks broadcasts are not in the public interest.

 

                               Here, we studied three documents linking power and power-cons. We showed first how power is used, in particular showing the influence of the media. We then showed that this power can meet different various purposes. Secondly, we have demonstrated in what ways are formed against opposing forces / powers are formed, and that they mostly feed mostly of much debate.

Merci pour votre aide                

[ruedesetoiles]

Merci JRB ta correction est très rapide ! Je n'ai pas trouvé de traduction directe au terme "contre-pouvoir". Peut être que " against power" est plus juste.

[Jean B]

Le 05/04/2016 at 14:36, ruedesetoiles a dit :

Merci JRB ta correction est très rapide ! Je n'ai pas trouvé de traduction directe au terme "contre-pouvoir". Peut être que " against power" est plus juste.

Non !  Est-ce que tu lis mes corrections et annotations ? J'en doute car, à plusieurs reprises, je t'ai proposé une alternative acceptable : opposing forces ou powers.  Pour parodier la publicité Ducros, " à quoi ça sert que JRB se décarcasse ? "