Live8

“Live 8 was, and remains a brilliant moment but what is more important is the brilliant movement of which it was a part. This gives the poorest of the poor real political muscle for the first time.

It is this movement of church people and trade unionists, soccer moms and student activists, that will carry the spirit of Live 8 on.  It is this movement, not rock stars, that will make it untenable in the future to break promises to the most vulnerable people on this planet.

That was always why we put on the concerts.”

Bono

Live 8 was a series of benefit concerts held on July 2, 2005, to help make poverty history.  At 10 different venues, 1250 musicians participated in the Global Call for Action Against Poverty campaign. The G8 (group of governments from eight nations including Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) G8 leaders promised to double their 2004 relief funds to poor regions from U.S$25 billion to U.S$50 billion by the year of 2010.  The G8 leaders met shorty after the concert and promised a list of additional actions:

• AIDS drugs to all those who need them, and care for all AIDS orphans

• debt cancellation for 38 countries, with 18 benefiting this year

• Free, quality primary education and basic healthcare for all children.

• AIDS drugs for all who need them, and care for all AIDS orphans.

• Treatment and bed nets to halve deaths from malaria.

• Vaccinations to eradicate polio.

The Live 8 event was and is still important to me because I know that people don’t think about how fortunate we are to have the luxuries we do.  Our government makes it possible to maintain a very stable country for its citizens, whereas the nations over seas don’t even come close to that.  Almost one in five adults have AIDS in South Africa, and approximately 57% of Africans live below the poverty line.  Live 8 made it possible for people to think more about poverty in the developing countries and regions.  30 million people came together to promise those underprivileged that there still is hope.

  

"Live 8 - Making promises happen." Live 8. 2005. 26 Nov. 2008 <http://www.live8live.com/en/privacypolicy.shtml>.

"Poverty in South Africa: Extent of access to food and income." HSRC. Nov. 2006. 26 Nov. 2008 <http://www.hsrc.ac.za/hsrc_review_article-47.phtml>.

"The scale of South Africa’s AIDS crisis." Avert. Nov. 2008. 26 Nov. 2008 <http://www.avert.org/aidssouthafrica.htm>.

The Language of a New Era

Participate -take part : thousands participated in a nationwide strike.

Culture -the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively : 20th century popular culture.

Participatory culture is all around us, you can make it as broad as you want, or as narrow as you want.  Lets get narrow.

Henry Jenkins said “Media convergence fosters a new participatory folk culture by giving average people the tools to archive, annotate, appropriate and recirculate content.” (Jenkins, 2001) 

MSN messenger is probably the most well known, most used participatory culture.  I personally think MSN is the coolest thing, I was one of those kids who was never allowed to get an email account until absolutely necessary, so I appreciate MSN for its luxuries in a way the average teenager doesn’t.  

My involvement in this specific participatory culture consists of strictly communicating.  I can say whatever I want, to whoever is on my contact list, whenever I want.  MSN is used to play games between people, there is nothing better then a good competitive game of chess and you don’t have to worry about lacking any playing pieces.  MSN is used to see people, even if they are say...in Holland.  MSN is used to chat, gossip, love, hate, save, and satisfy. 

The language of a new era is built around participation.  Network neutrality is making it possible for people to participate easy and free, and wherever there is internet.  Take advantage of this and engage in our world. 

Jam.

“Culture jamming is an intriguing form of political communication that has emerged in response to the commercial isolation of public life.” (Center for Communication and Civic Engagement)  

I have mixed feelings toward the world of Culture Jamming.  I would prefer to call them spoof ads, advertisements that have been altered or created to mock a message, political or not.  Some spoof ads are completely unnecessary and ignorant, and why people think they have the right to express certain opinions is beyond me.  For example:

However, I chose to analyze a spoof ad, or “Culture Jam” that actually has a meaningful message about reality.  This altered Nike ad states:

“You’re running because you want that raise, to be all you can be.  But it’s not easy when you work sixty hours a week making sneakers in an Indonesian factory and your friends disappear when they ask for a raise.  So think globally before you decide it’s so cool to wear Nike.”

To me, this is an effective Culture Jam.  It is bringing forth a concern that everyone is aware of - the brutal labour across seas.  When I read the message on the fake Nike ad, I can picture the factory in Indonesia.  I can see the intense age range of workers, and their troubled expressions.  According to me, this is a negative, but positive message.  Negative because the subject at hand is a delicate issue, and deals with horrible circumstances that cannot be changed.  Positive because it raises awareness.  After a North American citizen such as myself reads this ad, maybe they will think about this message when they go shopping next, when they pick up something that says “Made in Indonesia” or, “Made in China” or wherever else.  Maybe they will see the same image as I see, and change their outlook on why they purchase what they do.  

Is it so cool to wear Nike?  Did you think about this issue before you read this message?  Is it so cool to support a horrific matter?  Think about the meaningful Culture Jams, and why they are out there.  People are screaming for attention, screaming for your attention.  Do what’s actually so cool and give your attention to what matters.  

Bennett, Lance. "Culture Jamming and Meme-based Communication." Center for Communication and Civic Engagement. 23 Nov. 2008 <http://ccce.com.washington.edu/projects/culturejamming.html>.

English, Ron. "Billboards." PROPAGANDA The Art and Crimes of Ron English. 2008. 23 Nov. 2008 <http://www.popaganda.com/billboards/index9.shtml>.

"Spoof Ads." Adbusters. 23 Nov. 2008 <http://www.adbusters.org/node/677>.

But Nothing

Realize.

Stop.   

Take a minute to think.

Think about what you do, to contribute to the issue of over consumption.   

Your role is bigger than you think, when you spend money, you are reducing the world’s resources.  Could you have done without that shirt?  Or how about that key chain?  What about that high tech hockey stick?  Stop and think about how you can make a difference, and how you can start a trend.  Perhaps you could turn it into a game, which one of your friends can go the longest without buying anything? 

Rethink.

Take that negative attitude and turn it upside down and inside out.  Buy your groceries a day before and fill up your phone cards in advance because you can do this.  You can go a day without buying anything and help our planet.  You LIVE here, your CHILDREN will live here.  You can make a difference.

Reduce.  

Statistics show that in 2007, 65,965,489 Americans shopped ‘til they dropped’ (“Buy Nothing Day 2008”, Jess Confer).  I can’t imagine what the statistics show for the entire planet regarding daily shoppers.  Buy Nothing Day is an internationally applied act that is intended to reduce our compulsive decisions to purchase goods, in hopes to conserve the earth’s precious resources.     

Reality.

We as human beings are addicted to spending money, I mean.... we earn it to spend it right?  Statistics show that the number of shoppers are increasing each year.  In Canada, internet shopping alone increased 61% from 2005 to 2007.  In Lawrence Lessig’s Free Culture, he compares Walt Disney’s fame from his creation of Mickey Mouse to modern technology.  He said Disney wasn’t sure if his plans for Mickey would work, which can be compared to the development of the internet (Free Culture, page 22).  Personally, I think this theory can be applied to anything.  Once something is introduced to our society, it will develop until it crashes.  Spending money will only happen until we cannot anymore, or until our resources run out.  Lets prevent that from happening and buy nothing on November 28th.  

Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture. New York: Penguin Group, 2004. 21-23.

McKeown, Larry. "E-commerce: Shopping on the Internet." Statistics Canada, The Daily. 17 Nov. 2008. 22 Nov. 2008 <http://www.statcan.ca/daily/english/081117/d081117a.htm>.

Freedom Thieves

"We will not reclaim a free culture by individual action alone.  It will also take important reforms of laws.  We have a long way to go before the politicians will listen to these ideas and implement these reforms.  But that also means that we have time to build awareness around the changes we need.” (Lessig, 2005)

Allow me to translate: FREEDOM THIEVES. 

I believe that the world is turning into a very jealous place.  Jealous of each other, that is.  Money is just like that piece of meat all the hyenas drool and kill each other for.  We are drooling for money, and people are doing whatever it takes to get it.  Companies like  Verizon, AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner are in a battle against themselves and each other to consume every penny in whatever way possible, so they keep taking more and more from the public.  

If it wasn’t for net neutrality, people would not have the freedom of using the internet like they do now.  There would be access to Google, YouTube, Facebook...

Hotmail

Adbusters

Myspace

TheStar.com

Yahoo

Skype

...you get the point.

These major media companies are trying to regulate our internet by charging us for simply accessing websites.  I don’t think you are thinking about that properly.  NO INTERNET?  Our Internet Service Providers could potentially become our internet gatekeepers, that doesn’t sound very democratic to me.  

“GOALS.  It’s best to avoid standing directly between a competitive jerk and his goals”

Wrong answer.  Get in their way, fight for what we want, what we really cannot live without.  

Coca Coca Cola!

Although Coca-Cola is not a major media company at first thought, the company’s influence on the media, and its sponsors forcefully push it into a media class.  Coca-Cola is universally known to be one of the most famous beverage companies, with a net income sitting at $5,981,000 and operating in over 200 countries.  Coca-Cola owns 13 brands with sales over $1 billion, and markets more than 2800 products including sparkling and still beverages, waters, juices, teas, coffees, sports drinks and energy drinks.  Coca-Cola owns four of the world’s top five sparkling beverages, which are Coca-Cola, Diet Coke, Sprite and Fanta.  Just in case this is not enough information, you should know that if all the Coca-Cola ever produced were in 8 ounce bottles laid end to end, they would reach to the moon and back 1,677 times.  

Coca-Cola is considered a major media company because of it’s obvious influence on the surrounding media.  As soon as a polar bear is seen anywhere, the public automatically thinks of Coke because of their famous commercials infested with polar bears.  Coca-Cola is also part of the media because of who they sponsor, take the Olympics for instance.  Coke is responsible for turning their famous drink into an icon, used all around the world.  Say for example, if Coke sponsors a rock concert, and written in bold on the stage is “COCA-COLA”, the viewers no longer think of Coke as a drink at the time, they think of it as a sign at a concert, an icon.  

Cross media ownership comes with one very defined implication; narrow vision. Robert W. McChesney once said that “the largest media firms have some of the same major shareholders, own pieces of one another or have interlocking boards of directors.” If one company owns multiple smaller companies, where is the diversity?  Don’t get me wrong, Coke is doing an exceptional job at keeping up with the consumers and providing without failure, but one company running the show means one vision running the show.  Coca-Cola’s opinions and messages trickle through all their brands and make this one big Coke world.  

"Coca Cola Canada." 2008. 26 Nov. 2008 <http://www.cocacola.ca/our_company.htm>.

McChesney, Robert W. "The New Global Media:It's a Small World of Big Conglomerates." 1999. 25 Nov. 2008 <http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/29/053.html>.

Wallechinsky, David. "Businesses in the World Coca-Cola Company." Trivia Library. 1981. 25 Nov. 2008 <http://www.trivia-library.com/b/businesses-in-the-world-coca-cola-company.htm>.

Fake News; Wake Up Call.

The act of fake news is taking democracy to the next level. It is allowing the public to contribute to what we hear about, what we talk about.  It allows ordinary people to sarcastically mimic events within the news, and gives them the freedom of criticizing sardonically. 

Originally I thought: what good is this doing?  How is this important?  Why should ordinary people have the right to mimic the news; which is supposed to be a source of accurate information for the public’s well being.  According to me, well....it’s not.   It’s not important for all the obvious reasons. Why should we fill our minds with inaccurate facts and make fun of people who are making an effort to make a difference, or distribute information concerning events to the public eye?  Why should Tina Fey be used to mimic the opinions and beliefs of Sarah Palin?  For fun?  Think about it, WHY is this necessary?  

However, despite all the overpowering negative effects of fake news, maybe we need too look at the underlying positives.  Maybe it is necessary, after all, to make fun of, and emphasize some of the stupid things people say.  Maybe we need that wake up call.  

Fake news is important because sometimes, people need to look at the news in a sarcastic manner.  Politics possess endless unnecessary dramatics.  Overanalyzed situations and exaggerated debates need the ironic attention to show the public that the issues we are spending so much time on, may not even be worth it.   

Sources:

Finkelstein, Brian, Mike Leffingwell, Joe O'Brien, and John Reynolds. "ABout FNN247." FNN247. .