Ofcom Make "Make Poverty History" history

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

http://www.nme.co.uk/news/kanye-west/20977

Those ads where various celebrity / musicians and Bono click their fingers to symbolise a death every 12 seconds through povery, have been banned as being "political".

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:49 (twenty years ago)

So we've established Make Povery History has been banned but what about Make Poverty History?

― Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:55 (twenty years ago)

not very good

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:59 (twenty years ago)

what's does povery mean?

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 10:01 (twenty years ago)

This might help, but probably not:

http://juristic.zcu.cz/img/knihovna/linde/povery.gif

― Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 10:02 (twenty years ago)

i don't get the reference.

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 10:04 (twenty years ago)

make pointy hats history?

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 10:04 (twenty years ago)

Although most people agree with the campaign,
the rules are the rules, and they have to be enforced in the same manner for everyone, no matter how laudable their aims are.

It's a bit unfortunate, but if they allowed this they'd be giving an open door to, say, the BNP running a series of commercials complaining about the plight of poor people in Britain and saying the only way to solve the problem is to kick all asylum seekers out of the country.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 10:57 (twenty years ago)

what does povery mean though?

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 10:58 (twenty years ago)

given that the bbc ran an 'nhs night' at one point, i don't think the idea that most tv is apolitical stands up.

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 10:59 (twenty years ago)

NHS isn't political!

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:00 (twenty years ago)

also, ads for bp are political.

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:02 (twenty years ago)

the bbc itself is political.

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:02 (twenty years ago)

what does povery mean though?

It's when teh gays say 'Oh' instead of 'Ooh'

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:07 (twenty years ago)

everything is political

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:08 (twenty years ago)

"also, ads for bp are political."

If you seriously think that, you can can complain to Ofcom via ther website.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:08 (twenty years ago)

your mum's political

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:14 (twenty years ago)

what does povery mean though?
-- ken c (pykachu10...) (webmail), Today 11:58 AM. (later) (link)

It's when you're so poor you cannot even afford t.

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:22 (twenty years ago)

Isn't anybody just glad they've taken those smug "ooh look at me I'm so concerned about the developing world I'm pulling a sad face what do you mean I can't get a free meal at the Jamie Oliver's place do they know who I am?" utter utter CUNTS have been taken off tv?

― I Oppose All Rock and Roll (noodle vague), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:27 (twenty years ago)

no.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:34 (twenty years ago)

*CLICK*

LOOK AT ME I'M DEAD SERIOUS COS I'M DOING CHARI-DEEEEE

*CLICK*

― I Oppose All Rock and Roll (noodle vague), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:35 (twenty years ago)

i dunno who's in it, i doubt they're all cunts, but i await a spot where people asking for charity donations makes a happy face.

oh noodle you old cynic you.

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:36 (twenty years ago)

i mean it's clearly MUCH MORE IMPORTANT that a few celebs don't get an ego boost than that a charity or cause is publicized on tv.

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:37 (twenty years ago)

Well, I posed the question as a debating point. But I have to say the ads were very irritating. I think I saw this only at the cinema though.

Oh no hang on, it was on Live-8 wasn;t it?

― mark grout (mark grout), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:38 (twenty years ago)

I think a world where celebrities weren't encouraged to do this kind of thing would be a world in less need of charities.

― I Oppose All Rock and Roll (noodle vague), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:40 (twenty years ago)

i don't see the correlation

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:42 (twenty years ago)

me neiver.

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:48 (twenty years ago)

Because Celeb Charity = poverty as a spectator sport, as something to be at the top of the news headlines once every 6 months if Bono's got some spare time, as a symbol of fucked-up priorities whereby if everybody who bought a gossip magazine put the money and time they spent into reading it for one week into more robust political action they might achieve something useful. Because it's Politics as Ultra-shallow spectacle (yes crucify me for jargon, I'm sorry, I'm angry and depressed.)

― I Oppose All Rock and Roll (noodle vague), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:49 (twenty years ago)

Because Celeb Charity = poverty as a spectator sport

how is it like spectator sport? is this like alan partridge 'fully supporting the law'?

as something to be at the top of the news headlines once every 6 months if Bono's got some spare time

yeah, ok

as a symbol of fucked-up priorities whereby if everybody who bought a gossip magazine put the money and time they spent into reading it for one week into more robust political action they might achieve something useful.

ie about half an hour? why not the time they spend doing pointless admin, or sleeping, or... whatever.

Because it's Politics as Ultra-shallow spectacle

perhaps it is. to get over, on tv, perhaps it has to be.

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:53 (twenty years ago)

surely the problem lies with the people who don't pay attention unless a celebrity is involved? people who Don't Do Politics anymore?

But of course it's irritating that Bono etc use these things to make themselves look good (to igorant people, so why so upset about it)?

what does povery mean though?
-- ken c (pykachu10...) (webmail), Today 11:58 AM. (later) (link)
It's when you're so poor you cannot even afford t.

-- mark grout (mark.grou...), September 14th, 2005 12:22 PM. (mark grout) (later) (link)

a quick look on holloway road would tell you that no matter how poor you are you can always afford a can of t.

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:54 (twenty years ago)

honestly though, this povery thing, i've just searched on google why do so many websites have "make povery history" as the headline? is this some popular misspelling like "pwned"?

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:56 (twenty years ago)

I agree with most of what you say, guys. My point was that charity might be less necessary if the world wasn't such a celeb-obsessed shambles.

― I Oppose All Rock and Roll (noodle vague), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 12:01 (twenty years ago)

I am SOOO annoyed by this. Feeding people and stopping people dying is NOT a political aim. It's people MAKING it a political aim that stops it from happening.

― Come Back Johnny B (Johnney B), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 12:07 (twenty years ago)

i don't think celebrity culture is in my top ten of things that are wrong with the world, still less things that cause poverty, disease, war, ect.

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 12:07 (twenty years ago)

TS: Authoritarianism vs. Soma

― I Oppose All Rock and Roll (noodle vague), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 12:08 (twenty years ago)

what is soma? oh noes my brane has been washed by celebs and daft punk records oh noes!

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 12:11 (twenty years ago)

i can't see how celebrity interest/obsession and being active in politics are mutually exclusive things. stereotyping a little?

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 12:12 (twenty years ago)

haha daft punk yes!! they're always complaining about having to work long hours!! that's why everyone's poor.

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 12:14 (twenty years ago)

Just because there are annoying celebs involved in Make Poverty History, does that mean that the aims are any less worthy? No. So why the hostility?

― Come Back Johnny B (Johnney B), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 12:16 (twenty years ago)

soma = the wonder-drug that kept everyone happy in Brave New World

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 12:27 (twenty years ago)

i want some soma.

― jeffrey (johnson), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 12:29 (twenty years ago)

ihttp://www.urbanized-records.com/home/pics/jackets/0/119.jpg

― DO YOU SEE, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 12:41 (twenty years ago)

Could it be because there are annoying celebs involved?

(xpost x 4)

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 12:46 (twenty years ago)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0603/millymollymandy/pictures.jpg

― I Oppose All Rock and Roll (noodle vague), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 13:08 (twenty years ago)

“This advertisement simply highlights the fact that a child dies every three seconds because of preventable poverty."

The fact that it's been going on forever with no end in sight would make a strong case for it not being as "preventable" as people would think, but whatever. Real life is really one of those Pete Townshend concept albums where rock and roll saves the world or something.

― Cunga (Cunga), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 13:43 (twenty years ago)

Just because there are annoying celebs involved in Make Poverty History, does that mean that the aims are any less worthy? No. So why the hostility?

I don't like it because much like LiveAID, We Are the World, etc etc we never get any straight facts later about whether or not the big awareness raising "cause" actually did anything to help anybody out other than the celebs and organizers. No facts are really reported about whether Coldplay teaming up with Richard Ashcroft for a duet stopped a starving children from dying any faster and no one really expects some. The lofty goals and morality are often times just a cloak for putting on a show filled with moral exibitionism and self-righteousness. The celebs also get the luxury of being able to say that at least their motivations were amazingly good when their cause has shown to have done nothing for the very people they were trying to help. They can't really lose. Many people really do care and really do hope these things will get things better I'm sure but I personally believe too many people use starving children as mascots on their stage. Does anybody really think that when Africa gets its stuff together centuries from now that they'll be tracing the movement back to Bono?

― Cunga (Cunga), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 14:02 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.