|
Live8
Jul 1, 2005 22:00:37 GMT
Post by The Tommunist on Jul 1, 2005 22:00:37 GMT
First off, I'm glad to be back from a LONG absence, I can't actually remember why I left in the first place! Ok, the troubles of Africa - if you haven't heard about them now, you either don't own a TV or summat weird's happened. Tomorrow sees the beginning of the G8, a meeting of the seven richest nations in the world (plus Russia) - a big chance for poverty to finally be over and a chance to get George Bush off his high horse about climate change (apparently he's too fond of his large cars and aeroplanes than saving the world from climate change). Tomorrow also sees the highly anticipated Live8 event, proposedly the largest music event in modern history. It's main purpose is to raise awareness of the stupid amounts of poverty that are still occuring in Africa, and I couldn't agree more. The G8 is the perfect opportunity for Britain to do something about poverty, and I believe Live8 is a brilliant idea to get the message known. However, I am sure that you all have differing opinions about Africa and Live8. What do you all think?
|
|
|
Live8
Jul 2, 2005 9:07:05 GMT
Post by ringmasterrob on Jul 2, 2005 9:07:05 GMT
The original Live Aid was a wonderful idea and was possibly the greatest show on Earth, as its tagline suggested. As it was done for charity it was very easy to get behind it as pretty much anyone can pick up a phone and donate money. Even back in 1985 it managed to raise over £100 million. With Live 8 however I think Bob Geldof has made a mistake, making the event purely political is likely to divide opinions and, more importantly, makes it more difficult for the viewers to get involved. After all with so much voter apathy and political disinterest around these days people are less likely to get involved politically than they are to call in and donate money. It's a good opportunity to get the message known I agree but I also think it's a missed opportunity to raise money as well as awareness. My opinion of Africa is that something needs to be done but whether or not the political impact Live 8 will have does anything about this or not remains to be seen...
[On a more personal note, Pink Floyd have reformed just for the event, you can't get much better than that really!]
|
|
|
Live8
Jul 2, 2005 10:36:52 GMT
Post by The Tommunist on Jul 2, 2005 10:36:52 GMT
I think you're missing the point - Live 8 is not Live Aid 2. It has nothing to do with wanting people's money, the aim is to both raise political awarness (not political activity) and to show the G8 leaders that people do actually give a damn about what's happening in Africa, so they'll make it a priority at the summit. Live 8 isn't about charity.
|
|
|
Live8
Jul 2, 2005 12:23:10 GMT
Post by ringmasterrob on Jul 2, 2005 12:23:10 GMT
I'm not missing the point, as I said I know it's about political awarness. What I WAS saying is that I don't know as it will be as successful with a purely political message. I very much hope that the event does succeed and that the G8 leaders are forced into action, in fact I would very happily be proved wrong if the result was the event succeeding.
|
|
|
Live8
Jul 6, 2005 19:33:15 GMT
Post by TheCritique on Jul 6, 2005 19:33:15 GMT
My personal view is that the concert(s) will have very little effect on the summit. Chirac will still be fuming about losing the games, and will be having tantrums and sulking throughout, taking swipes at Blair wherever possible. There are also the anarchy protests which include violence and criminal damage. The media will focus on these events, not the influence of the concert.
Following all this, many will have forgotten about Live8, and we all know summits are the worst way to conduct diplomacy, as demonstrated in the Yes Prime Minister episode 'A Diplomatic Incident' - all leaders will have their unique public agendas which they can't be seen to back down on - they won't agree on anything too significant. For example, the rebate debate in Europe recently, and Bush has told us he won't do anything in the terms of climate change of it in any way damages the US economy, so therefore nothing will be decided on the issue of climate change. Therefore the only successes will be minor and will be over-emphasized by the media.
|
|
|
Live8
Nov 3, 2005 15:51:42 GMT
Post by The Tommunist on Nov 3, 2005 15:51:42 GMT
Does anybody know what the results actually were at the end of the summit? They weren't exactly broadcast to the world (many thanks to London bombers).
|
|
|
Live8
Nov 3, 2005 17:54:50 GMT
Post by Naselus on Nov 3, 2005 17:54:50 GMT
George Bush decided not to change anything he was doing about global warming, and the African Debt was canceled. Which actually kinda was broadcast to the world.
|
|
|
Live8
Nov 10, 2005 13:50:53 GMT
Post by The Tommunist on Nov 10, 2005 13:50:53 GMT
I don't recall it being on the news.
|
|
|
Live8
Nov 10, 2005 14:21:44 GMT
Post by Naselus on Nov 10, 2005 14:21:44 GMT
Really? It was quite well reoprted. Well, the cancelation of the debt was, so we could all feel warm and fuzzy inside for only making African hopelessly poor for the past 50 years, and not feel so bad about that whole colonialism-era, and slavery, and massacres, and the film Zulu, with Michael Caine.
George Bush not moving on global warming wasn't mentioned particularly much, because nothing changed.
|
|
|
Live8
Nov 14, 2005 7:48:20 GMT
Post by The Tommunist on Nov 14, 2005 7:48:20 GMT
I believe the reason I didn't see it was because 7/7 occured shortly afterwards.
|
|
|
Live8
Nov 14, 2005 9:29:56 GMT
Post by HStorm on Nov 14, 2005 9:29:56 GMT
Which is fair enough, but not really the fault of the media.
|
|