Much as I applaud the ideals of Live Earth, I think I have been afflicted by GMEF (That’s Global Music Event Fatigue). The frequency that we have huge telethons and transatlantic concerts means that we also need TV presenters to remind us just how historic this concert will be:
“Just how historic is this concert going to be, Jack Osbourne?”
“Its going to be very historic, Jonathan…”
The eagerness to define and document this kind of history, as it happens, is a particular symptom of the 24 hour news culture world in which we live. As we watch these programmes, we (and their producers) seem ignorant of the fact that they will not persist in our collective memory like the original Live Aid concert in 1985. Why? The clue is in the word “original” – Live Aid was the first event of its kind.
These other concerts are mere fakes, fabrications, exercises in nostalgia. They may be bigger, and they may even have better music. But the lack of novelty in the idea renders them free from the radicalism and urgency which characterised Live Aid. The result is a cruel pastiche, and each global music event yields diminishing returns for longevity, historical impact, and probably money too. And with so many other channels to watch, they are also ineffective as a shared cultural moment. This last point is crucial when there is a wider political message to be communicated. If people do not feel an ownership for the event, then the message is less likely to be discussed.
And to see acts like Duran Duran and Kanye West playing on two consecutive weekends surely devalues both events. There is little incentive to tune in for the event of the year/decade/century/your life, if you’ve seen the same event the week before.
Simon Le Bon of Duran Duran sings at Wembley Stadium for Live Earth. or was it Live Aid? Or the Concert For Diana?
Author: Robert (Page 262 of 328)
We all know how common it is for politicians to lack self-awareness. If they did not make their ill-thought, contradictory statements on a regular basis, then satirists would be out of a job. It is the sincerety of the politician that makes the satirist funny.
It is also funny because we assume that the politicians in question do care about what the public thinks. We assume that they value their reputation, and that they will not be happy to see it eroded through mockery. This acts as a check on their actions. If they will not avoid the contradictory or the counter-productive because it is right, then at least they will make an attempt to do so in order to preserve their standing.
America is in the midst of a crisis, a breakdown in the realtionship between its Executive and the people. Most recently the focus has been on Vice-President Dick Cheney’s rejection of any kind of scrutiny of his role and activities from Congress. Meanwhile, President ‘King George’ Bush has just commuted the sentence of Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, who was convicted of perjury. Senator Barak Obama’s statement gts to the nub of the issue:
This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law.
Both Bush and Cheney have been accused of acting in a ‘regal‘ manner (via Andrew). In the case of both men, and in contrast to other politicians who face criticism, the ‘self-aware’ streak seems to be missing. Its no longer the ironic-tragic-oxymoronic policies of giving up rights and civil liberties in order to protect “freedom” or “our way of life”. By treating the law with contempt, by applying it arbitrarily, they are perpetrating exactly the kind of offence which caused the founding fathers to declare themselves independent from King George III:
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power;
…
For depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury;
For transporting us beyond the Seas to be tried for pretended Offences;
Many people say the reason for this imperviousness to public opinion is that both men are effectively ‘lame ducks’. Neither are seeking a further term of office. This explanation only goes so far, however. Even ‘lame ducks’ have a party, and should understand that their conduct reflects on their political colleagues. They also have a political legacy to think about. Their carelessness seems of a more pathological nature. I am not sure which is more worrying – the notion that they simply don’t care, or the notion that they are simply unaware of the gravity of their actions.
Either way, I fear that many of the shields a citizenry can use to protect themselves from abuses of power, such as debate and satire, are no longer effective. It needs a noisier, angrier response – The righteous indignation of Keith Olbermann over the suave satire of Jon Stewart.
Its very good news that Alan Johnston has been released from captivity in Gaza. Today would be a good day to remember that five Britons are still missing in Iraq (why do we not hear much talk about them) and that captured Israeli Gilad Shalit is still being used as a bargaining chip by Hamas – the same organisation which secured Johnston’s release.
I did notice a strange similarity between one of the frantic snaps of Alan arriving (or is he leaving) in a car, and the iconic image of nuclear whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu after his capture in Rome. Two balding men with their hands up against the glass – one man on his way to freedom, the other on his way to captivity.
I’m sure elsewhere in Blogistan the wags are enjoying the news that all the recent terror arrestees worked for the NHS. No doubt someone will suggest that working under Patricia Hewitt was enough to drive anyone to extremism; no doubt others will quip that the doctors turned to terrorism after failing to secure a job through MTAS. Some might try to suggest that the obvious ineptitude of the terrorists proves what poor quality personnel the NHS is employing these days…
Listening to the radio reports just now, I noticed the repeated use of the phrase ‘linked’. Usually, we hear it as part of that nebulus catch-all, “groups linked to Al-Q’aeda”. To hear instead that the men were “linked to the NHS” manages to portray our Health Serivce in a rather sinister new light.
Perhaps the NHS should be more like Al-Q’aeda. Many people have been saying for many years that the individual hospitals and trusts need to behave in a more autonomous fashion. They should be set a target and left to reach it in whatever manner they see fit. Not unlike a terrorist cell.
Continue reading
After the terror attacks in London and Glasgow, there’s obviously been a lot of analysis and opinions flying around, from the mainstream media, security analysts, bloggers and the general public. Its interesting to see how most people are adhering to the idea that life should go on, and that these attempted suicide attacks should not provoke a draconian curb in civil liberties. To do so would hand the terrorists a victory.
For what its worth, I think Gordon Brown, Jacquie Smith and Alex Salmond have hit the right note, with their calls for unity and calm. Dave Hill seems to agree.
Over at the Devils Kitchen, Nosemonkey makes an interesting, if flippant point in the comments:
I believe in taking the piss when they cock up, and diminishing the status of the terrorist bogeyman. Terrorists exist to spread terror – make them a figure of fun, they fail, even if the occasional success does manage to kill a few score people and freak us out for a bit.
I’m not sure about making jokes about the attack, although I would suggest that the “life goes on”, “I’m not bovver’d” attitude also contributes to the diminishing returns of terrorist attacks in the UK.