75% of Americans did not follow coverage of LiveEarth; only 34% believe it will help the cause.

[calteacherguy]

Sunday, July 08, 2007

The Live Earth concert promoted by former Vice President Al Gore received plenty of media coverage and hype, but most Americans tuned out. Just 22% said they followed news stories about the concert Somewhat or Very Closely. Seventy-five percent (75%) did not follow coverage of the event.

By way of comparison, eight-in-ten voters routinely said they were following news coverage of the recent Senate debate over immigration. Fifty-four percent (54%) said they followed news coverage of the President’s decision to commute Scooter Libby’s sentence.

Skepticism about the participants may have been a factor in creating this low level of interest. Most Americans (52%) believe the performers take part in such events because it is good for their image. Only 24% say the celebrities really believe in the cause while another 24% are not sure. One rock star who apparently shared that view is Matt Bellamy of the band Muse. Earlier in the week, he jokingly referred to Live Earth as "private jets for climate change."

Only 34% believe that events like Live Earth actually help the cause they are intended to serve.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/skeptical_of_performers_motives_public_tunes_out_live_earth_event

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

1. Ah, rasmussen. I know that name well. What insightful questions you don't ask.

MKJ

[maximusveritas]

11. Yep, Rasmussen is a Republican pollster

I don't trust anything he releases. He always tries to give a right-wing spin on his results.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

32. They are?

Well, I'd always suspected as much. MKJ

on edit, thanks maximusveritas, for the inside scoop.

[GreenTea]

39. Yeah, they try and get their repug poll out there first, for the talking heads to use

tomorrow to trash it all and hope other polls will follow their bullshit...

[Robbien]

2. Nice Exxon propaganda you've posted

Exxon's front group has been very busy all over trying to not get people to pay attention.

Tsk. Tsk. If only they'd use their money for good instead of evil all the time.

[karlrschneider]

12. I was grocery shopping this morning and I asked every person I saw if they watched any of it.

Out of over a hundred, exactly two said yes. Most of them had no idea what I was talking about.

[sandnsea]

16. move

In some places, everybody is familiar and doing their part, and didn't need a concert to tell them what to do.

[karlrschneider]

35. Move to some place where the event wasn't even significant?

Yeah, that makes a lot of fucking sense.
:eyes:

[sandnsea]

36. Nah, stay in Oklahoma

and complain incessantly that nothing ever changes. That makes sooo much more sense.

[karlrschneider]

38. I wondered who was making snarky replies so I cleaned out my ignore list to see.

Won't make that mistake again.
buh bye

[angstlessk]

24. Where the hell do you shop when you can encounter 100 other

shoppers at the time you are shopping???

[karlrschneider]

34. Uh, it's a large Walmart Superstore in Wagoner, Oklahoma.

Does that sound implausible to you? (And before you pillory me for shopping there, understand it is the only grocery store in the county - the only one within 35 miles.)
There were at least 300 customers in there, I asked only those who were easily approachable.

[TwilightGardener]

40. Maybe they declined to answer because they thought you were a little, you know...

nuts for accosting strangers in a grocery store, asking non-grocery-related questions. Just sayin', as someone who is often mistaken for "easily approachable".

[karlrschneider]

41. They didn't "decline to answer." This is a small town...it is normal for strangers to engage in

casual conversation. Not one single person 'eyed' me in anything like a suspicious way or reacted negatively to an innocent question. It's common for people to ask -similar- questions of non-acquaintances concerning what they may have seen on TV...whether political or not.

Edit: by the way, I made no conclusions about my little unscientific survey...just reported the result. It's just one small data point I thought was interesting.

[TwilightGardener]

43. Okey-dokey, then! Maybe you just hit a particularly large pocket of the apathetic/ill-informed.

on edit--Nothing wrong with shopping at Wally-World.

[karlrschneider]

46. Hell, I live in the middle of a large pocket of ill-informed morons.

Check out what we have for senators...
:puke:

[TwilightGardener]

48. Inhofe and...that other asshole, what's-his-name. Yep.

[Peregrine Took]

3. They are trying to poison the waters against it in the minds of the public

to mitigate its results.

So predictable its boring.

We will hear the same all week from the wing nut pundits and talk show morons. Repeat a lie often enough and .....

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

4. So only 1 out of 4 followed the coverage - that is HUGE!!!!!

For God's sake, it is a single event and you are saying almost a quarter of the population followed it!!! Do you have any idea how networks would kill to have that kind of penetration. You have delivered good news indeed, even if you don't recognize it as such.

[sandnsea]

17. I agree

These negative assholes are the problem. I guess they just love the aroma of their own shitpile becaue they sure do love sitting on their own pity pots.

[glitch]

22. 75 million, which is pretty awesome! Not to mention all the subsequent Net viewings. nt

:)

[CitizenLeft]

47. that was my take, too

To me, 25% of the population makes it a success, not a failure.

[aaronbees]

51. Absolutely!! Someone gets it!

That's fantastic reach into the public consciousness. Seriously, what do people expect? And keep in mind these are just American respondents -- this event didn't just take place in dumb ol' US of A.

The interpretation presented by Rasmussen is a completely skewed hit job.

[Cha]

5. Well, don't that beat

fuck all for propoganda shite?

I don't believe anything from that corporatewhore.

[Breeze54]

6. 10 million viewers and they say that?? LMAO!!

Consider the source.

http://www.canada.com/topics/entertainment/story.html?id=16f59d5d-60fc-43b9-acbc-43000b959745">Record 10 million log on around the globe for Live Earth

CanWest News Service
Published: Saturday, July 07, 2007

Music fans and environmentalists around the world united Saturday for Live Earth,
a concert to raise awareness and funds for the global climate crisis.

A record 10 million viewers had watched the concerts in seven continents via Internet
video streams — the most simultaneous viewers of any online concert ever, said a press
release from the event organizers.

Spearheaded by Al Gore — a former candidate for U.S. presidency — Live Earth hoped to
reach up to 2 billion people through radio, television and the Internet with high-profile
headliners, including The Police, Bon Jovi and Lenny Kravitz.

“History is being made today,” said Joanne Bradford, corporate vice president and chief
media officer of MSN, which is streaming the video. “Millions of people around the world
have joined together to fight the climate crisis.”

The 24-hour concerts, which featured more than 100 of the best-known names in music, took
place in major cities, including New York, London and Tokyo.

Other cities also participated in the event.

Montreal was one of more than 10,000 cities in 130 countries that were “Friends of Live Earth,”
with smaller concerts scheduled in solidarity.

By Saturday night, 8,000 tickets had been sold for the Montreal sur terre show, featuring
favourite francophone acts such as Zachary Richard, Daniel Boucher and Jorane.
Organizers expected the final number to be more than 10,000.

“We’re here for the cause — the environment, the planet, the future,” said Marie-Josee Carroll, 26.

“We feel like we’re part of something that’s bigger than just us,” said Daniel Cool, 46.
“It’s an important issue for us, for our kids and, one day, for our kids’ kids.”

Stephane Michon, a father of six, brought his whole family to the event.
“Plain and simple, it’s important to be here,” he said.

[Double T]

7. THIS APATHY is the very reason this planet is doomed.

Few take global warming SERIOUSLY and even fewer will PERSONALLY do anything about it! PATHETIC!! Future generations won't be bitching about their greedy ancestors that destroyed the planet because there won't be anyone left on the planet to bitch.

[The_Casual_Observer]

8. 75% of people don't recognise the bill of rights when it is read to them

either.

[otherlander]

42. Are you serious?

Can you actually verify that?

[VOX]

9. At the moment, the Rasmussen site has banner ads for NewsMax.com...

And that may say it all. :grr:

[mod mom]

10. Polls are now put forward designed to sway public opinion.

[Elspeth]

19. Exactly. Thank you.

:kick:

[sandnsea]

13. 34% is all it takes

I really wish the wet blankets would come up with a better solution or stfu.

[Colobo]

14. I believe this poll; Americans in general are very apathetic.

[xchrom]

15. so the american viewer was the only viewer that mattered?

i mean this was a global telecast -- and millions watched world wide.

yes -- the only thing that ever matters is what happens here:eyes: .

[Breeze54]

26. The USA is behind the rest of the world on this...

we need to catch up!!

Congressman Ed Markey (MA-7) to Deliver Democratic Radio Address

http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/06/congressman_ed.php

Congressman Ed Markey (MA-7), Chair of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming,
will deliver the Democratic Radio Address tomorrow. In his address, Chairman Markey will discuss global warming
and the recent Congressional delegation to Greenland and Europe to see firsthand its adverse impact on our planet.

WHO: Congressman Ed Markey (MA-7)

WHAT: Weekly Democratic Radio Address

WHEN: Saturday, June 2, 2007 - 11:06 a.m. (EST)

WHERE: Major radio networks, including AP, ABC, NPR, CBS Radio, CNN Radio, C-SPAN, Armed Forces Radio Network,
American Urban Radio Network, Voice of America Radio Network, BBC Radio, CBC Radio, and Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Below is a transcript of his remarks:

"Next week, the leaders of eight of the most powerful nations in the world will meet in Germany to confront a serious problem that affects all of us - global warming.

"The agenda for the G-8 Summit is clear and urgent - the world needs to set binding limits on the emissions of heat-trapping pollution that causes climate change. The world's most renowned scientists now agree that our rapidly warming climate is man-made, not natural.


Snip-->

"Unfortunately, in answer to this urgent global call to action, this week President Bush continued his rope-a-dope strategy on global warming - shifting from denial to delay.

"The President has had six and a half years to enact meaningful limits on global warming pollution, and he has failed. In fact, he hasn't even tried: under President Bush, the United States refused to even participate in the international effort to control global warming.

"His new plan is to discuss voluntary goals for another 18 months, guaranteeing that he will end his eight-year term with the United States contribution to global warming pollution considerably worse than when he took office.

"I just came back from a trip with Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Greenland and Western Europe to meet with leading scientists and political leaders working on solutions to combat global warming. In Greenland, I witnessed firsthand the effects of rising temperatures, where glaciers are retreating at a dramatic rate and the seas no longer freeze for much of the winter.

"When the glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica break up, as they are beginning to do right now, it is a sure sign to all of us that we must change our ways.

"And the United States has a special responsibility to lead. China and India must participate, as well. But if we don't limit our own pollution, China or India will not develop plans to limit theirs.

"The world is running a fever, and there are no hospitals to care for Mother Earth. Her future is in our hands.

"But the good news is that if we act now, we can reduce global warming while continuing to prosper. We can unleash a revolution of technological innovation, create large numbers of new jobs, and utilize American initiative in exercising wise stewardship of a precious planet.

"The American people know this. Our states, cities and towns, our universities, faith-based communities, major corporations, and millions of individuals are all saying they want our federal government to join with our allies to combat global warming while strengthening our economy.

"Democrats in Congress have heard this message.

"We are committed to passing strong energy independence and global warming legislation that can harness the unmatched capacity of America for technological leadership in energy efficiency, renewable energy, biofuels, and other innovations such as fuel cells and gas-saving hybrid cars.

"We should do everything we can to make America the world's number one exporter of technology to generate electricity from coal without emitting more carbon into the atmosphere.

"And we need to make our vehicles, power plants, and other energy producers far more efficient and clean, leading the world, not lagging behind.

"We are a competitive and innovative nation. If our government would set aggressive, binding limits on pollution, we would meet it. If Germany can meet new electricity demand with solar cells, so can we. If England can build zero-carbon homes, so can we.

"We are not waiting for President Bush. Democrats are insisting on a new direction, one based on technology, not ideology - on optimism, not fear. President Kennedy once said 'God's work on earth must truly be our own.' It is our moral responsibility to lead the world to protect our planet. After all, it's the only planet we have.

"This is Congressman Ed Markey. Thank you for listening."

[C_U_L8R]

18. That's a deceptive headline

they can only claim that 75% of their sample (whoever they are)
believes these things. The rest is wishful rightwing thinking.

[cobalt1999]

20. Only 36% of Americans VOTE! If all these people actually voted

there would be a huge impact.

[Babsbrain]

21. And your point is...?

That you are a faithful Fox viewer?

[blogslut]

23. So, Rasmussen is Nielson now?

n/t

[depakid]

25. A pollster said it! It must be true!

And DU'ers must jump to the tune!

[fishwax]

27. I think those numbers are pretty good, and many of those who didn't watch may still support

the cause in any number of ways. (I didn't watch much of it, personally.)

[RestoreGore]

28. Polls are BS

Period.

[theHandpuppet]

29. Well, I'm a bit of a skeptic myself

So I guess that puts me in the .0001 minority here at DU. Oh well, won't be the first tiime, I guess.

I'm skeptical that most of the "stars" who participated in this event actually believe in this cause when individually the carbon footprints they leave behind are equivalent to those of small villages around the world. Get back to me when people who don't live in huge mansions and travel in private jets start promoting the cause.

I'm skeptical because events such as this ARE huge promo events for bands and musicians. Hey, a ready-to-order, world-wide audience. But nah, we all know the music industry is run by a bunch of altruistic, not-for-profit philanthropists.

Finally, and what really puts me in the minority here, is that I would rather have my fingernails pulled out with pliers than sit through a rock concert. Yes, hard to believe ladies and germs, but not everyone cares for rock. And I wonder how many who actually attended those concerts gave a damn about global warming.

Okay, maybe I'm a stick in the mud but I can honestly understand the skepticism. Did "Live Earth" actually accomplish anything tangible? Time will tell. But it simply wasn't my cup of tea, and I'm already a believer.

[Connie_Corleone]

30. You're not alone on DU.

I didn't watch a minute of the Live Earth event. I just have no interest in watching a concert on TV. I really don't like concerts, period.

I don't need to watch a concert to know that Global Warming is happening and what needs to be done about it.

[quinnox]

31. I'm one of them, didn't see it

And I doubt it will cause some kind of eco-revolution that some duers are dreaming about.

It is going to take more than some concert where millionaire stars sing and a few speeches are given to cause a real change in peoples way of behavior toward the environment.

[NotGivingUp]

33. I can't help but feel that way, too. It's gonna take a lot more than a concert. nt

[toddaa]

37. Perhaps it had something to do with the scheduled acts

Granted, my taste in music doesn't give me much clue as to what exactly passes for popular these days, but based on the list of artists I saw, I know why I didn't tune in.

Corporate Rock Sucks.

[Omphaloskepsis]

49. Would having a band you liked play get you to ride your bike to work?

The whole thing was a nice gesture. But, in reality on Tuesday it will be forgotten.

[PurpleChez]

44. I wholeheartedly believe events like this help the cause

But while I embrace the cause I just wasn't particularly interested in the event, so I didn't follow the story. Nonetheless, I'm totally jazzed that the event is being touted as a triumph for Al Gore. Yea, Al!

[BlooInBloo]

45. I had no idea what it was/when it was until yesterday.

[tandem5]

50. I admit it! I did not follow any "news stories about the concert Somewhat or Very Closely"...

I just watched the concert instead.

[TheWebHead]

52. if 22% were following it

that's fine with me... 22% in a divided country can move an election, especially when even a portion of the 22% treat climate change with the same intensity that an NRA member treats gun control.

I'm sure that figure, from a republican pollster or not, is a big jump from a survey that would have taken place just a few years ago.

[treestar]

53. If they think it's good for their image, then apparently the pollee

thinks it is a good thing to do, no?

Like those rock stars need to worry about their image. Most of them were well established.

It's also a stupid question to ask what other people think. 24% believe they can read someone else's mind?

[Hippo_Tron]

54. Rasmussen is biased, if he says it's 34 I'd say it's closer to 40 than 34

Rasmussen is the guy who always has Bush's approval rating 10 points higher than it actually is.