Live Earth was...
Interesting. I'm not sure if thats what they were going for, but media outlets around the world seem confused. For example:
The Times (UK) reports: "Live Earth fails to pack large-scale punch"
MSNBC (US) reports: "Many wonder if Live Earth made any difference"
CNN (US) reports: "Global warming concerts: A lot of hot air?"
The Telegraph (UK) reports: "Live Earth is a win for global yawning"
Stuff (New Zealand) reports: "Earth underwhelmed by Live gigs"
Fox News (US) reports: "Live Earth just another Rock n' Roll show?"
Reuters (Africa) reports: "Earth underwhelmed by environment pop extravaganza"
The Daily Mail (UK) reports: "Live Earth branded a foul-mouthed flop: Poor ratings on BBC"
AOL News (US) reports: "Live Earth: A cooling trend"
CTV (Canada) reports: "Critics still attack climate change science"
The Globe and Mail (Canada) reports: "Will Live Earth hurt more than help?"
The Guardian Unlimited (UK) reports: "Global Warbling"
The Associated Press (US) reports: "Is Live Earth green enough?"
The United Kingdom Express (UK) reports: "LIVE EARTH HYPOCRITES"
The list goes on. It seems that many people around the world have missed the point that this concert of epic proportions was to get across: Global Warming is a world-wide crisis that everyone needs to recognize, acknowledge and prevent through sacrifice. Even if this statement were accurate, the way to tackle such a large scale problem isn't "rocking out."
Overall, the attempt to recreate the effect of Live Aid (1985) and Live 8 (2005) went flat. When a ticket to Live Earth goes for anywhere between $83 and $348 (even more on Ebay), planning is horrific, organizers blame the low attendance on climate change effects, the event is hypocritical, and the overall message is both weak and controversial, people are not going to take it seriously. Furthermore, the Live 8 (2005) and Live Aid (1985) concerts were free to those willing to come out to support and/or make donations while Live Earth charged enormous amounts for tickets and is still making merchandise available for purchase on their website (belt for $25, shirt for $20, etc). I am sure the event did better at raising profits rather than awareness.
In all honestly, I watched parts of the concert simply because I wanted to see some of the bands.
Here are the final stories of the night, two that show just why Live Earth wasn't given a serious look: BBC and Life Style Extra poll numbers.
The Times (UK) reports: "Live Earth fails to pack large-scale punch"
MSNBC (US) reports: "Many wonder if Live Earth made any difference"
CNN (US) reports: "Global warming concerts: A lot of hot air?"
The Telegraph (UK) reports: "Live Earth is a win for global yawning"
Stuff (New Zealand) reports: "Earth underwhelmed by Live gigs"
Fox News (US) reports: "Live Earth just another Rock n' Roll show?"
Reuters (Africa) reports: "Earth underwhelmed by environment pop extravaganza"
The Daily Mail (UK) reports: "Live Earth branded a foul-mouthed flop: Poor ratings on BBC"
AOL News (US) reports: "Live Earth: A cooling trend"
CTV (Canada) reports: "Critics still attack climate change science"
The Globe and Mail (Canada) reports: "Will Live Earth hurt more than help?"
The Guardian Unlimited (UK) reports: "Global Warbling"
The Associated Press (US) reports: "Is Live Earth green enough?"
The United Kingdom Express (UK) reports: "LIVE EARTH HYPOCRITES"
The list goes on. It seems that many people around the world have missed the point that this concert of epic proportions was to get across: Global Warming is a world-wide crisis that everyone needs to recognize, acknowledge and prevent through sacrifice. Even if this statement were accurate, the way to tackle such a large scale problem isn't "rocking out."
Overall, the attempt to recreate the effect of Live Aid (1985) and Live 8 (2005) went flat. When a ticket to Live Earth goes for anywhere between $83 and $348 (even more on Ebay), planning is horrific, organizers blame the low attendance on climate change effects, the event is hypocritical, and the overall message is both weak and controversial, people are not going to take it seriously. Furthermore, the Live 8 (2005) and Live Aid (1985) concerts were free to those willing to come out to support and/or make donations while Live Earth charged enormous amounts for tickets and is still making merchandise available for purchase on their website (belt for $25, shirt for $20, etc). I am sure the event did better at raising profits rather than awareness.
In all honestly, I watched parts of the concert simply because I wanted to see some of the bands.
Here are the final stories of the night, two that show just why Live Earth wasn't given a serious look: BBC and Life Style Extra poll numbers.
posted by Carl Soderberg at
10:34 PM
1 Comments:
Hearing about the Live Earth concert hype all throughout the last month did become quite sickening. Anyone who has MSN.com as their homepage probably felt my pain. I'm just happy that it is over with so that I can enjoy receiving my hotmail without "global crisis" concerns thrown in my face.
Post a Comment
<< Home