live 8 works (for the wrong people)
Posted Wednesday, July 06, 2005 7/06/2005 11:04:00 PM
Protestors at the G8 summit made a lot of noise and were promptly ignored by the attendees. Another group of people that were promptly ignored were the organizers of the giant charity concerts live8. While many millions were entertained by the live 8 concert(s) very few took the time to sign the online petition. I say what did they expect? People attend these concerts to hear music not necessarily to support the cause. I don't understand why entertainers feel they can solve all the worlds problems by doing a charity event. Criticisms of faluire aside at least Live Aid raised real money. Live 8 is supposed to do what? Raise awareness and pressure leaders into increasing aid and cutting third world debt. It will most likely be a misguided failure. And according to polls it looks like most people agree. The world leaders, hopefully, are going to do make their decisions based on the advise of their advisors that are paid big bucks to sit down and weigh the facts and make informed decisions. I'm certain that none of them are going to be swayed Bono and company. In general I'm sick of entertainers thinking they can save the world by singing or speaking out against prescription drugs.
So what was the point of Live 8. Well, I suggest that it was to raise money. Unfortunately not to fight poverty but for the entertainers and big businesses. How can you have a "free" charity concert that is distributed "on demand and only on AOL" and on MTV presented by Vonage, via phone by Sun Microsystems and USA Wireless. Live 8 is sponsored by AOL, Nokia, Capital Radio, O2, Sun Microsystems, and USA Wireless. They are getting publicity and so are the entertainers. At least most of these sponsors are being couth about it but I was almost floored this morning when I heard a commercial touting "watch this historic charity event exclusively on AOL." Does anyone else see this as a little less then completely altruistic?
So what was the point of Live 8. Well, I suggest that it was to raise money. Unfortunately not to fight poverty but for the entertainers and big businesses. How can you have a "free" charity concert that is distributed "on demand and only on AOL" and on MTV presented by Vonage, via phone by Sun Microsystems and USA Wireless. Live 8 is sponsored by AOL, Nokia, Capital Radio, O2, Sun Microsystems, and USA Wireless. They are getting publicity and so are the entertainers. At least most of these sponsors are being couth about it but I was almost floored this morning when I heard a commercial touting "watch this historic charity event exclusively on AOL." Does anyone else see this as a little less then completely altruistic?
by harshblogger at 7/06/2005 11:04:00 PM
Permalink
| Comments (5)
|
|
| Blog This
5 Comments:
I for one believe that the world leaders must take note of the mass of people that did go to these shows with intent of showing them that we believe they should address the issue and make a change.
As far as signing the petition, I did not carry my PC with me to the concert but I did sign the petition after the concert.
Attending the concert with me were my 6 and 10 year old sons. Whom watched a documentary a few weeks earlier with me about the cause and they also feel that children and people should not be dieing due to proverty.
Last night we were listening to NPR and heard that the world leaders were going discussing helping Africa and my oldest son made a comment "maybe the leaders were paying attention".
South Carolina
By
Anonymous, at 7/07/2005 07:39:00 AM
I agree that "people should not be dieing due to poverty". But does a concert to raise awareness really help? How does streaming the concert "exclusively on AOL" help the cause? I'm sure it helps AOL cause. And I believe that discussing helping Africa was already on the agenda.
I think what Africa needs is not awareness but real intelligent help. Thought out help that will assist in the building of infrastructure. Unfortunately I think that only comes with regime change in many of those countries.
Honestly, I don't really like arguing political issues. Unlike physics there is no right answer only more informed answers. And I (and your two sons) don't study these issues in the depth that the experts do. I suggest that we leave entertaining to the entertainers and the politics to the political experts. And no, I don't usually consider a politician a political expert but hopefully they heed the advice of the experts.
By
harshblogger, at 7/07/2005 09:41:00 AM
Good points here but I am thinking that some awareness had to have been raised. Anybody who thought G8 leaders were going to say "Wow, let's really get on this now" because of the shows is living in a fantasy world.
We know businesses are going to try to cash in on it however they can. Maybe if folks like ATT, Mae East and other bandwidth and routing providers stepped up and gave AOL some bandwidth, they might have less need to 'advertise' the shows.
I would look more to MTV's obvious greed in that every time I turned them on it was a commercial!
Bill Gates donates 100s of millions of dollars to charities each year. Some will give him kudos, others will say he could do a lot more. I suppose both are correct.
I also believe, however, that something is better than nothing. It's a fact that throwing more money at the issues is not the answer.
Music has a way of kick-starting things. More music has a way of reminding us of things. Had the concert intended to raise money, money would have been raised. They made it clear they did that 20 years ago and things are worse (a bit of leaving pride on the shelf maybe?). I am sure some artists were there to promote themselves. I do not know any of them personally so I cannot speculate as to who. I am definitely not going to sit here, then, and point fingers without knowing.
One thing I must disagree on. We must be in charge of our govermnents. Leaving politics to the politicians and their experts figuring 'they will take care of it' is a dangerous thing that will ultimately lead to our civil liberties being robbed from us. By the very vote you cast, you are taking politics into your own hands, and so it should be. If you are not voting as an informed voter-by making yourself AWARE of issues, then you are only doing yourself a great injustice.
By
Anonymous, at 7/08/2005 03:13:00 AM
I agree with the last comment that "Leaving politics to the politicians" is a bad idea. I didn't mean to suggest that it was. We speak with our votes and hopefully elect the person that is most capable of gathering a team of responsible and intelligent individuals that can run the system for us. We can't all keep on top of all issues at hand.
Unfortunately I think too often the politicians are dictated not by the experts or the desires of the public but by the election process. They don't necessarily do what is best but what is best for them to get re-elected. And what happens when what is best is best for the public is not what the public wants. I think we are a large group of generally under informed lazy individuals with extreamly short attention spans. Again a reason that I hate politics… no "right" answer.
By
harshblogger, at 7/08/2005 03:10:00 PM
I would be impressed to see some national networks now give us one commercial-free hour of Live 8, once a month, with simply a reminder to write our representatives, cordially remind them who is boss, and remind them of these issues such as fair trade and appropriation/disbursment of needed aid until these people can get themselves going (hopefully facilitated by fair trade).
Now, we'd be doing something. When reps see that kind of action, they know they have to move on it or face losing the next term. They see it is an issue, and they see in no unclear terms where their constituency stands.
Corruption in Africa is touchy. I think it's important they work that out however they need to.
By
Anonymous, at 7/08/2005 05:39:00 PM
Post a Comment