Discourse on Development Aid in Africa Comparing Differences Between Live Aid/8

Home , Bob Geldof, Live 8, Live Aid, Make Poverty History

Discourse on Development Aid in Africa Comparing differences between Live Aid/8

Bachelor Thesis Political Science – International Relations

Author: Britt Polman (10781358) Supervisor: Dr. Michael Onyebuchi Eze Second reader: Dr. Sebastian Krapohl June 2019

2 Content

INTRODUCTION 5

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 7 DISCOURSE AND DEFIANCE 7 COLONIAL DISCOURSE ON AFRICA 8 PORNOGRAPHY OF POVERTY 9 DEVELOPMENT MADE SEXY 10 SYNTHESIZED CONCEPT: COMMERCIALIZATION OF MORALITY 11

METHOD 13 DATA 13 OPERATIONALIZATION 14

ANALYSIS 17

LIVE AID 17 LIVE 8 21 LIVE AID/8: DISCURSIVE CHANGES 25

CONCLUSION 29

BIBLIOGRAPHY 32

APPENDIX 34 POSTERS 34 NEWS ARTICLES 37 OTHER SOURCES 39

“People are not born beggars, they are made.” Malagassy tour guide Rina (personal diary 16-10-18)

4 Introduction

The 1950’s marked the beginning of the global North’s interest in stimulating the development of African countries. The Marshall Plan proved successful with many European countries rapidly developing after the ravage of World War II. Within this context the focus of development aid turned to Africa as a solution to the perceived need of help of many African countries (Moyo 2009: 26). Thereafter development aid took different shapes, starting with industrialization and poverty relief, then onto structural adjustments and stabilization of governments, and in the 1990’s the focus on democratization and governance (idem: 24). In the past centuries development aid is primarily perceived as the only solution to Africa’s many problems (ibid.). These forms of development aid are all meant to help improve the lives of people from African countries living in poverty or otherwise inhumane circumstances. However, this attitude towards development aid and Africa can be problematized in a variety of ways. Particularly, a view of foreign (Western) aid for Africa as necessary seems to depend on a patron-client relationship that is reminiscent of colonial times. In relation to this persisting power structure it categorizes people from African countries in a certain way that places them outside the realm of agency in their own development. In order to legitimize the foreign aid system in Africa, and to raise huge amounts of money from donors, the idea that aid is necessary is communicated to the larger public through various forms. NGO campaigns, media coverage on Africa’s problems, and large-scale fundraising events portray Africa and ‘Africans’ in a certain way that show development aid is indispensable. The problem of this portrayal is that it serves to sustain existing unequal power structures (who has the right to categorize others) and creates “realities of its own” (Lamers 2005: 39). Although the purpose of development aid is to do good and the actual results of the projects might be positive, my focus is on the effects of how development aid is portrayed. In this thesis Foucault’s concept of discourse as well as Saïd’s theory of ‘othering’ will be used to examine the portrayal and categorization of Africa and its development aid. Foucault’s understanding of discourse underlies much research on development aid discourse, which has given rise to other concepts such as the ‘pornography of poverty’ and ‘development made sexy’. These theories all describe the way development aid and Africa are portrayed and the often negative consequences of certain portrayals. Much of this knowledge will be used in the theoretical framework of my research, although I find that not enough emphasis is placed both upon the fluid nature of discourse, as well as on the complexity in

5 which power structures shape the form and expression of the discourse. Thus in my research the focus will not only be on the way discourse takes shape, but also on how it is challenged and changed by different actors. Furthermore a new concept will be introduced to examine discourse on development aid, which will merge earlier theories together. This concept is described as the commercialization of morality, and is an attempt to make a useful contribution to the existing literature by posing an alternate way of examining development aid discourse. Based on the above problematization of discourse on development aid in Africa which perpetuates unequal power structures, the following question will be the focus of research in my thesis. In what ways has the international discourse around development aid in Africa changed over the course of twenty years? Possible changes in discourse will be examined by comparing two international development aid fundraising events for Africa, Live Aid and Live 8 respectively. These were both large-scale benefit concerts organized by Northern countries to support African countries. As there was an exactly 20-year gap between these two events, a comparison will be made to determine if and how the discourse around development aid is different between 1985 and 2005. The underlying assumption of this thesis is that whether or not the discourse has changed is exemplary of the shifting underlying power structure between Northern countries and the African continent which largely defines the possibilities and agency of people from African countries. Research into this particular subject can help determine whether unequal historical power structures are still at play in popular discourse, or that something is changing for better or worse. It thus could also help to see what aspects of discourse still need to be contested and improved in order to create a more equal relationship between northern countries and Africa.

6 Theoretical framework

As I follow a constructivist epistemological frame of mind, this influences the kind of theories used. Many scholars have researched various aspects of development aid, as well as specifically the discourse around it. In this chapter, I examine this literature on discourse and development aid. First theories of discourse and othering will be examined, as well as the ways discourse can be challenged. Thereafter the influence of history, in particular colonial times, on discourse concerning Africa will be outlined. What follows is a discussion of the concepts of ‘pornography of poverty’ and ‘development made sexy’ respectively. Concluding the theoretical description is my argument for a synthesis between these two concepts into ‘commercialization of morality’.

Discourse and defiance Michel Foucault understood the social world as being constructed through language. Power and knowledge were in his theory closely connected, as knowledge itself had power, both in being an authority of truth and of making itself true (Foucault 1994). Foucault describes the concept of discourse as the collection of ideas and statements that form the language that is used to speak about a certain subject (Foucault 1980). This is always inextricably connected to power relations, thus there is no form of ‘pure’ knowledge (ibid.). Not only is discourse a way of speaking about subjects, it also creates their subjectivity. Knowledge and language practices are a claim from a dominant group to have the right to define and categorize others. This is closely connected to power structures in society, or the way interpersonal relationships are structured and how this determines the “possible field of action” for the different actors within this structure (Foucault 1982: 790). A society’s structure of power offers more or less room for action for different actors, in which some have more to say about others. Foucault’s concept of discourse and his thoughts on how language has the power to shape society has formed a theoretical basis for many scholars describing how different ways of discourse have certain implications. One well-known example of this is the work of Edward Saïd. The ability to talk about others is explained more thoroughly in Saïd’s theory on Orientalism. By talking about a subject, and thus through discourse, an ‘other’ is created in relation to one’s ‘self’, by creating distinctly different categories (Saïd 1978). This also implicitly states that the ‘other’ is deviant from the norm, the normal ‘self’. Taking this a step further, Saïd argues that “to have such knowledge of such a thing is to dominate it, to have authority over it”, and in the process removing the autonomy from the subject spoken of (idem:

7 40). His argument touches upon the relevance of my research question, the possibility of bringing autonomy back with Africa in changing discourse. For autonomy and power to be redistributed among the different subjects in a discourse, this discourse would have to be contested. Discourse creates a norm, by stating who is the ‘self’ and who is the ‘other’ and thus deviant of the norm. Although it creates a certain kind of truth, it also creates room for defying this truth claim. For discourse to be contested or changed, what is seen as normal has to be identified and challenged for its inherent assumptions. This can be done by a critique or refusal of the language used to talk about a situation or subject, or an attempt to transform this construction of the subject (Lilja & Vinthagen 2014: 114). Identifying the origins and implications of certain discourse is a first step towards its contestation. This will be done in the following subsections.

Colonial discourse on Africa Colonial discourse is elaborately explained in Julie Grant’s article, where she shows how during colonial times a view of the ‘other’, the colonized, was created by the colonizers (Grant 2015). Non-European people were imagined and portrayed as an inferior other as opposed to the superior European, in this way posing a justification of the colonialization (idem: 311). The colonized other was perceived as being less developed and more primitive than the European self, and this view was accepted in the European as well as the colonized mind as the reality and truth (ibid.). Aimé Césaire argues that the European dehumanized the colonized, and equates colonization with ‘thing-ification’ (Césaire 1972: 41-42). Claiming superiority, the European poses the tolerance of the colonized as the direct result of the colonizer’s conscience and duty (idem: 72). Generally known as the ‘White Man’s Burden’, the assumed identity of the European as the superior vis-à-vis the colonized served to justify the complete takeover of African life and society (Brantlinger 2007: 172). This reality centred thus upon the notion of the non-European as inferior, and formed the base of colonial discourse. After independence from the colonists, the non-Europeans were still seen as the inferior and underdeveloped other, although the way this view was practiced changed. Instead of politically controlling the ‘other’, the former colonizers saw it as their duty to ‘help’ them out of their inferiority (Grant 2015: 311). Grant closely relates the colonial period and the power structures and inferiority discourse that lasted from that time to present-day popular culture. As Lester puts it: “[a] sense of responsibility for distant strangers may never be able to escape the declaration of

8 ‘epistemological sovereignty over [their] bodies and minds’” (Lester 2002: 291). Grant demonstrates that even though in recent years charity organizations did largely change their discourse of inferiority and helplessness of the non-European ‘other’, within popular culture there are still “problematic truths” portrayed (idem: 312). To summarize the colonial discourse on Africa, in popular discourse today power structures that were established during colonialism are still perpetuated, thus letting inferiority images of the African ‘other’ persist through portrayals. The remainders of colonial times are collectively called post-colonialism, in other words the influence of colonialism and decolonization on current day political and epistemological relationships (Meer 2018: 1167).

Pornography of poverty Smith and Yanacopulos’ article forms the basis of the body of literature on ‘the pornography of poverty’ (Smith & Yanacopulos 2004). They focus on the representation or ‘public face’ of development and argue that these public faces are intrinsically connected to relationships between the North and South as well as themselves embedded in social, political, economic and cultural structures (idem: 658). According to them, the relationships are from there “mediated and produced” by organizations as well as context and interests. Although the authors don’t explicitly touch on discourse as a concept, their argument could be said to be the epistemological ground for research on discourse: the idea that discursive practices on development aid in Africa influence and are influenced by the power structure between Northern countries and Africa. Following this line of thought other authors delve in deeper on the way development aid and Africa are portrayed. An important concept in this regard is the ‘pornography of poverty’, which can be defined as the use of “emotive imagery” to induce donations from Northern countries out of guilt (Smillie 1995: 136). Coming out of an enduring sense of supremacy over ‘the Third World’, Western media and aid organizations portray these countries as in need of aid assistance due to factors such as poverty and underdevelopment (Lamers 2005: 39). Lamers incorporates this concept in his study and argues that “institutionalised production of images and ideas … may have significant consequences for the production and maintenance of boundaries between notions of ‘self’ and ‘other’ in the public conception of the third world” (idem: 41-42). He thus puts a clear focus on underlying power structures and how they influence, produce or contest discourse. I intend to follow this line of thought in my thesis,

9 although Lamers lacks a sufficient consideration of unconscious reproduction of discourse that I believe is often apparent. Nathanson also builds her argument on the concept of ‘pornography of poverty’, and puts forward an even stronger connection with othering than Lamers does. She states that portraying African people in a certain way, namely in need of aid assistance due to various reasons, creates a separation between ‘us’ and ‘other’ (Nathanson 2013: 106-107). These portrayals also create an image of ‘the African’ as passive and unable to save him/herself, and thus in need of saving by the West. Frames and images are used to define another’s subjectivity, and raises the question of who gets to decide and ascribe meaning. At the same time this involves creating one’s own subjectivity in relation to the other: by ascribing an identity to the other a ‘self’ is created simultaneously.

Development made sexy Creating one’s own subjectivity in relation to the other is also the focus in the article by Cameron and Haanstra, who argue that in later years ‘pornography of poverty’ was replaced by a “re-imagination of development as sexy” (Cameron & Haanstra 2008: 1477). They claim that because of the pornography of poverty a ‘compassion fatigue’ occurred, thus giving rise to a need for new stories about development aid (idem: 1481). Reframing development aid as sexy is a contemporary way of marketing strategy, again trying to raise as much funds as possible. Development as sexy replaces the ‘other’ with the ‘self’ as the main focus in thinking about development aid, as contributing to aid is posed as an action that creates a certain (sexy) identity for the donor (idem: 1477). Through celebrity attention for example, people are tempted to participate in aid with the pretext that it will increase one’s own ‘sexiness’, thus enhancing their identity. This way the issues for which development aid is raised are simplified and depoliticized, as well as reduced to being of less important than the ‘self’ in the process. As Mostafanezhad argues, political and structural inequality is thus commoditised and individualised (Mostafanezhad 2013: 496). Although Cameron and Haanstra state that ‘development aid as sexy’ still enforces the supremacy structure between Northern countries and Africa, I feel they gravely overlook the possibility of a combination of ‘pornography of poverty’ and ‘development as sexy’ in discourse on development aid. Therefore I propose a synthesized concept of the two: the commercialization of morality.

10 Synthesized concept: commercialization of morality Moving beyond the two concepts described above I intend to use my concept of ‘commercialization of morality’ in the analysis of discourse in this thesis. As it combines ‘pornography of poverty’ and ‘development as sexy’ it will consist of aspects of both these concepts, but cover a broader understanding of how the discourse of development is constituted. The concept is defined as follows. Commercialization of morality implies that the discourse on development aid is centred upon the prime need to raise funds and help for certain countries, with the inherent assumption and imperative that the audience of this discourse consists of the people who need to give this help. The discourse thus plays on the moral instinct of the audience on a commercialized (simplified, homogenous, marketed) scale with the goal of raising as much funds, volunteers or other help for development aid. An important aspect of this is that the focus lies with raising action from the audience, not with the people who development aid is raised for. The pornography of poverty and the making sexy of development aid are two of the processes that are exemplary of the commercialization of morality. It should be noted however that this concept is thus far only to be understood within development aid discourse, although further research could extend the scope of which it can be used. Also, it is a first draft of a new concept, so it is likely that it will need adjusting in further research and analysis. In my thesis I will use the concept to test its analytic value. This value I believe lies in the ability to study the full scope of how development discourse is ‘used’, as well as how this discourse could be contested without focusing on either pornography of poverty or development as sexy. For example, a critique of how the development aid recipient is left out of the discourse would fall within the understanding of the discourse of development aid as a commercialization of morality. The relevance of the theories outlined in this chapter and concepts like the commercialization of morality lies in the denial of agency of the people that are spoken of. The portrayal of groups of people has implications for power relations in the ‘real’ world, thus making people for a part dependent on the discourse or narrative they are embedded in.

12 Method

The methodology that will be used to find an answer to the research question is a discourse analysis. This method consists of exploring ‘the relationship between discourse and reality in a particular context’ (Halperin & Heath 2017: 339). Through the examination of texts changes in discursive production can be enlightened and connected to actual social and power structures. Thus newspaper texts about the events and statements from the organization of Live Aid/8 itself will be used to do a discursive analysis concerning development aid in Africa. This asks for the signification of elements in certain discourse and an articulation of how one can identify change within this discourse. The major flaw in this method consists of the validity of the interpretation. Does the analysis derive logically from the texts examined? In what way are different forms of discourse identified and operationalized? This threat to the validity of the research can however be limited by clearly articulating the arguments for the relationship between the texts and the discourse, and grounding my argument on a plausible relationship between them. Also, before analysing the texts the indicators of the forms of discourse have to be articulated. Another problem in choosing this method is the inability to examine every text there is on the subject of research, thus possibly overseeing important aspects of the discourse. Which sources are used are has to outlined and substantiated in the next subsection. The advantage of discourse analysis is mainly the possibility of revealing meanings that help construct power/social relationships and behaviour in the actual world. How meaning is created and ascribed has a physical effect on actors within the structure, and determines how they can and will act. Especially when applied to international discourse, as it has influence on a huge part of the world’s population: thus also adding to the importance of this research.

Data The data used for this research consists of both marketing texts and images from Band Aid, the organization who was behind Live Aid and Live 8, and newspaper articles about both events. Due to the limited character of this thesis I was not able to include radio, even though it was a major form of media at the time of both events. Analysing the radio discourse around Live Aid/8 should be an interesting starting point for further research. The search for sources was limited to a time frame of three years (1984-86 and 2004-6) around which the events took place, to limit the scope of sources to a researchable amount for this thesis. The limited time frame also ensures that it was discourse constructed at that time, thus enabling an examination of

13 differences between discourses that are exactly 20 years apart. The newspapers which texts are taken into analysis are primarily selected for their scope of readers, as the more readers an article gets the more influence it will have on or be a representative of general discourse. Both the selective timeframe and the focus on large audience newspapers could imply a selection bias because some sources will be left out of analysis. However, I chose these limitations in order to enhance the analytic strength of the research: by studying two ‘general’ discourses with a specific time frame apart I intend to find either difference or similarity, but the two can be researched as different entities. Finally, as the main events took place in the United States and the United Kingdom, nearly all marketing and news articles that are available originate from there. Although I claim investigate ‘international’ discourse my research does thus not cover the full scope of international (or worldwide) discourse on the events. It does however include the two countries in which both events were most widely promoted and talked about, this way giving a representation of the main discourse.

Operationalization There are multiple indicators that will be used to research the forms of discourse and contestation. To determine whether there is evidence of a ‘commercialization of morality’ discourse, the following operationalization will be used. The texts will be examined on the appearance of dichotomies focusing on self and other, for example through an ‘us-them’ terminology. The prime focus will however be on the occurrence of framing of development aid in such ways that intends to induce certain feelings with the audience in an attempt to stimulate moral obligations and thus donations, participation or other help. This could be narratives on for example the necessity of giving help, the moral virtuousness of those already partaking in development aid, or the horrible situation the recipients of aid are living in. These aspects would signify a discourse in which the development aid recipient is still seen as an ‘other’ with the self as the necessary help, thus enforcing a commercialization of morality. The absence or minimal occurrence of these aspects could mean that this discourse is not evident or declining. Contestation of this discourse can be identified by narratives that explicitly identify and/or critique certain aspects of a commercialization of morality discourse, and its implications. This could be a critical reaction to the way development aid is framed in the media and marketing, or on how development aid is organized. A greater or lesser degree of contestation of a certain discourse could signify that the legitimation of the discourse is either

14 diminishing or growing (or remaining the same). This has implications for the possibility of changing the way one thinks about certain subjects, in this case development aid.

16 Analysis

In this chapter the two international charity events – Live Aid and Live 8 – will be outlined and then analysed along the lines of the theory already discussed. Both of these events were organized by the “supergroup” Band Aid, a collection of British singers and musicians brought together in 1984 by Bob Geldof and Midge Ure (Bobgeldof.com 2019). The same year Band Aid was founded they released a hit single, “Do They Know It’s Christmas” of which the revenues went to famine relief in Ethiopia. A year later an American group of multiple artists formed USA for Africa and also released a single called “We Are The World”. Because of the huge success of both singles the groups decided to collectively organize a charity event called Live Aid. Twenty years later a similar event was organized by roughly the same group, although this time the goal was not to raise funds but leverage against political world leaders. Live Aid/8 both got a lot of international media- and public attention, which poses a broad opportunity to examine the discourse around both events concerning development aid in Africa. The charity events will be discussed and the marketing and media coverage around it examined and analysed. The conclusion of this chapter involves a subsection that compares the discourses around both events and analyses their differences and similarities, and connects these aspects to broader theory.

Live Aid Live Aid was organized on the 13th of July 1985 with the intent of helping victims of the famine in Ethiopia. Due to a severe drought and a subsequent lack of efficient relief response the famine took over one million lives and made even more people either refugee or displaced in their own country (Gill 2010: 43-44). Images of the situation in Ethiopia horrified musician Bob Geldof and encouraged him to start Band Aid and release the hit single with other British artists. This led to a collaboration with American musicians a year later in the form of Live Aid (idem: 12- 13). The event encompassed 16 hours of concerts, some of them simultaneously, across the globe: the main stages were the JFK stadium in Philadelphia and the Wembley stadium in London, but there were also some concerts in Melbourne, Tokyo, the Hague, Austria and Belgrade. Some of the most famous artists and music groups of that time participated, such as David Bowie, Sting, The Who and Queen. It was one of the largest broadcasted events in history, with an estimated live-viewing audience of over 1.5 billion. Although they had hoped to raise approximately one million British pounds, the eventual number raised was over 150 million pounds (Bobgeldof.com 2019). It is said that the funds were tried to be directed towards

17 NGO’s to avoid the Ethiopian government, but sources on where the money went specifically are almost non-existent. There is still debate going on whether the influence of Live Aid on Ethiopia was positive or negative as it is argued much of the raised money got lost to corruption or even to buying weapons (Spin 2015). However, this debate lies outside of the focus of this thesis on the discourse around Live Aid. Therefore I now turn to the marketing of the event and the news coverage around it respectively. As Live Aid took place in the period where internet was not a widely used medium, most marketing was done through posters and TV commercials. The logo used on the posters, as well as during the event itself, was of a guitar with its sound box shaped like the continent of Africa and of which its neck forms the I’s in “Live Aid” written across it. Almost all of the posters feature this logo along with the name of the event, the artists playing, the venues and the date and time the concerts would commenceP1. Most of the posters show no other imagery besides the logo, although a few feature a picture of some of the artists or a group picture of all of themP2. Two posters are somewhat different from the rest. One poster has a giant jukebox posed on the world, with the guitar logo on it in between a knife and a fork, the text across it reading “the global jukebox”P3. Another also shows the jukebox, which stands in front of a world map on which are shown different cultural images of the countries they are supposedly located inP4. It says “the global jukebox”. Behind the jukebox are three dark-skinned children in drapes with frowns on their faces. On the forefront besides the jukebox is another dark- skinned child, naked and skinny, whose ribs and joints are sticking out. Below this entire picture it reads: “this poster saves lives”. Considering TV commercials I was able to find two of them. Both feature only a showing of the Live Aid logo (same as in the posters) and video recordings of the various artists that would be playing the event, along with recordings of the two hit singlesO1. Only one of them mentions the cause besides the events’ general information, saying that it is a “live event for Ethiopia”O2. In this commercial it is also claimed that it is “the most important rock event ever staged”. Looking at the marketing tools used they show no significant examples of a commercialization of morality. This is due to a lack of images or references to a horrifying situation in (in this case) Ethiopia, or other attempts to ignite a moral conscience about the events happening in that country at the time. Only one of the posters could be said to try to induce these kind of feelings, namely the one which shows the apparently famine-stricken child. Most other references to the cause of the event are either absent or subtle, for example the knife and fork and the shape of Africa in the logo. This absence is however also significant, as the main focus of the marketing tools seems to be on the event itself and its artists and not on the

18 cause for which the event is organized. The posters and commercials could be trying to gain an audience for any kind of concert without the explicit reference to a moral righteousness one would gather by attending. I will now turn to the news coverage of the Live Aid event. In the many news articles about the concerts, most of the coverage is about the artists and the scope of the event and not so much about the cause. However, there are portions of the articles that do talk about the charity or aid aspect of the events on which I focus my analysis. I divide the discourse in these portions into three aspects: who the action is taken for, who is seen as taking this action, and the motive for taking action. Who or what the action is taken for is described in three slightly different ways: • People or Africans starving to death: “[s]purred by heart-rending news reports of people

starving to death in Africa”16 • Famine victims or famine-stricken African countries/regions: “… to have raised about

$80 million to feed the hungry in famine-stricken Africa”37 • Worth-wile cause(s) or problem of worldwide importance: “‘[t]he rock-and-roll

community has always supported good, worthwile causes”16 Who is taking the action is described as either being the “rock-and-roll community” or its separate performers, the audience, or a general “we” which can be seen in phrases such as

“…we are the generation that can do it”9. On the motive for taking action the four main kinds of language used are as follows, often overlapping each other: • Fighting hunger or feeding starving people, which can be seen in phrases such as: “… urging viewers and listeners to make contributions toward combating hunger in

Africa”38

• Saving lives or keeping people alive: “… it’s about getting money to save lives”5

• Bringing in money: “… urging spectators to donate money”16 • Conscience, responsibility or concern and care: “‘[h]e’s done this fantastic job raising

the world conscience”1 The only critical point on Live Aid raised in these news articles comes in the form of a lack of black musicians participating in the event: “… the notable paucity of black performers at both concerts”9. What can be seen in this brief summary of the different aspects in news articles on Live Aid is a feeling of having a worthy cause that is in need of the support of the Live Aid audience and performers. There is a discourse that has both the elevated status of the rock-and-roll community as the leading group in achieving the good cause, as well as the explicit references

19 to the dire situation in Africa in an attempt to raise funds and participation. The elevated status of rock artists is also used to get people to join, as it tends to culminate into a “we” feeling. One would have to join to be included in the same “we” group with the performers already doing the work for the cause. References to raise people’s moral conscience can also be seen in the discourse around the motive for taking action: except for the phrases that solely focus on raising money, it seems to centre upon laying the responsibility or ability with the people watching and viewing Live Aid in saving the African people from starvation. With this recurring focus on either praising the moral conscience of the rockers or to make a plea to the audience’ morality in order to raise funds and participation, the discourse around the Live Aid concerts fits well within a commercialization of morality. Before going deeper in to this in the comparative discourse analysis of both events, I will now outline the same initial analysis on Live 8.

20 Live 8 Live 8 took place twenty years after its predecessor Live Aid, on July 2nd 2005 (Live 8 2019). Although the event in many ways referred back to Live Aid, it had another purpose and was organized slightly different. Its cause, also referred to in the name, was to exert pressure upon the G8. The G8 is a forum of eight world leaders who were to gather that year in Scotland to discuss mainly climate problems and the lack of economic development in Africa. Bob Geldof and Midge Ure organized this second charity event with the purpose of making the countries quit trade restrictions that had a bad influence on African countries (ibid.). They also wanted the G8 to increase their development aid and ratify the climate accord of Kyoto. Shortly after the event the G8 pledged to double their development aid by 2005, as well as releasing the 18 poorest countries of their debt (Young 2006). Raising funds was thus not the intent of Live 8, but mobilizing pressure on global politics by gathering large numbers of people together. For this reason no fee was charged for the tickets to the various concerts, which took place in the G8 countries and South Africa. The event was organized in London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Philadelphia, Barrie, Chiba, Johannesburg, Moscow, Cornwall and Edinburgh and was widely broadcasted on TV and radio. Over a 1000 artists played during the event, as well as some musicians that had also played at the Live Aid concerts. Due to criticisms on the lack of African musicians in the line-up a separate concert during Live 8 was organized in London with all African musicians: “Africa Calling” (Live 8 2019). This also gathered some critique based on the separation of the African artists from the other musicians. I will come back to this later, as I now turn to the marketing of the Live 8 event. Promotion of Live 8 was mainly done by posters and their website, as no TV commercials can be found. The logo of the event was very similar to that of Live Aid. It shows the guitar with its sound box shaped like the continent of Africa, and the neck as the I in Live. Below that, the neck seems to knot itself into the shape of the number eight. Live 8 features various different posters, although many of them are quite similar. None of them have photos of artists or other sceneries. One of them shows the Live 8 logo along with the general information about the event, as well as the text “one day one concert one world” above it and below it reads “make poverty history”P6. Another poster is almost exactly the same, with the exception that the “make poverty history” line is replaced with the same image of the skinny child that was used in the Live Aid postersP7. The third and final poster also features this child, standing in front of a dining table with all the heads of the G8 leaders behind it and the country flag in front of themP8. On the table are placed various kinds of pastries and desserts, and behind the entire scene is a world map with coloured stars indicating the G8 countries. The Live 8 logo

21 is not shown, but the name and date of the event is. The poster also reads “it was twenty years ago” besides a poster of Live Aid and at the bottom “the long walk to justice”. The Live 8 website features some of the same imagery and lines as the posters. The background of the site is a picture of the hands of a crowd of people cheering, as well as the Live 8 logo and “the long walk to justice” below itO3. The homepage features a statement by Bob Geldof explaining the cause of the event starting with “this is not Live Aid 2”. The rest of the website consists of information about the cause, the G8 top and the event itself. Summarizing this, on the site’s news section it reads the following text:

This is not a charity event. The concerts will be FREE. They are not fundraisers but rallying points for the largest political constituency ever mobilised to call for justice for Africa and the world's poor. They will focus the whole world's attention on the critical decisions to be made by the G8 four days later. ‘These concerts are the starting point for THE LONG WALK TO JUSTICE - we will not tolerate the further pain of the poor while we have the financial and moral means to prevent it.’ says Geldof. ‘The boys and girls with guitars will finally get to turn the world on its axis. What we started 20 years ago is coming to a political point in a few weeks. What we do next is seriously, properly, historically and politically important.’ (Live 8 2019, uppercase in original text)

Even though there are not many marketing tools for Live 8 to be found, there are still some interesting factors apparent in the images and texts used. Considering imagery it is mostly the appearance of the (still) famine-stricken child, who stands in contrast to the G8 top who hold all the delicious food. This image is reminiscent of a pornography of poverty, as the child seems to represent the hungry African children people have to stand up for by attending the concerts. It is in need of help vis-á-vis the big leaders who get to distribute the food. In the texts and slogans used there is often a clear sign of a commercialization of morality. Lines such as “make poverty history” and “the long walk to justice” seem to encourage people to join the concerts on behalf of their moral consciousness towards those living in poverty. In the description on the website this plea to morality is even more clear, as Geldof states that they have to help the poor because they are financially and morally able to. After that he claims the importance of joining as well as that the rock stars will make a considerable change. These aspects combined are certainly a commercialization of morality, as it combines a moral plea with factors seen in development made sexy. All together these aspects try to raise as much aid as possible, which in this case is in the form of attendance to the concerts. I will now turn to the news articles

22 around Live 8 to see if the commercialization of morality is also visible there, as well as other forms of discourse and contestation. With a few exceptions the news coverage on Live 8 is mainly critical, whether explicit or implicit. I divide the discourse around Live 8 in three aspects: the goal that is pursued with (participating in) Live 8, the people seen as the actors, and the different forms of critique that are articulated. The texts identify different goals for either organizing the event or participating in it: • Exerting pressure on the G8 leaders: “… intended to influence world leaders on the

wider issues blighting the African continent”20 • Cancelling debt, raising aid and changing trade: “… performers called for canceling third-world debt, doubling aid and changing trade regulations to open markets for

African goods”4

• Raising poverty-awareness: “… Live 8 is intended to raise awareness, not money”22 • Helping people that are dying, sometimes even an entire continent: “… an impoverished

child dies every three seconds”4 and “[w]e support a continent that is dying”22 • Getting a moment of fame: “… there was a chance that a sender’s name would be

projected on the video screens behind the stars”4 Considering the people who are seen as actors in Live 8 they can be roughly divided in two

groups: either the rockers or stars performing22, or a general group of fortunate or privileged

people4. The forms of critique on Live 8 are however the most diverse and present: • Lack of African voice and/or musicians: “‘to have such a striking absence of African artists on the bills for five concerts which are supposed to support and draw attention

to Africa is a disgrace’”22 • Certain group speaking for someone else: “… ‘[i]f they had a Baaba Maal or a Femi Kuti [African musicians] talking about African issues rather than white, middle-

class Western boys, it would have made a difference”22 • Denigrating attitude towards Africans: “… [t]hey still believe us to be like children that they must save, as if we don’t realize ourselves what the source of our problems

is”19 • Wrong motive: “… it was to amuse the crowds and to clear their own consciences,

and whether they realized it or not, to reinforce dictatorships”19 • Scepticism about effectiveness: “one year out leaders ask: did it make a

difference?”21

23 Because the event was not intended to raise funds for Africa directly, but to put pressure on the world leaders who had the power to influence politics on development aid, the discourse around the goal of Live 8 does not have a strong focus on the issues in Africa itself. Instead it is on the measures that have to be taken in order to achieve African relief. There are however some phrases that describe Africa as dying of poverty. This seems to plea for a moral reaction in the audience, although the overall discourse on the goals of Live 8 does not involve a strong commercialization of morality. It is also not evidently seen in the discourse around the actors in Live 8, as the phrases used on who are participating (by either performing or joining) are fairly minimal. The texts do not explicitly emphasize a moral righteousness in those that are participating, although they do imply a responsibility to take action due to being ‘privileged’ or ‘the generation’ that has to make a change. What does however come clearly to the attention in the various news articles is the criticism of various aspects of Live 8, especially the absence of African artists and voices. This is a clear example of a contestation of discourse, as aspects of the aid for Africa and the way it is spoken about are identified and critiqued. Through this critique, discourse on development aid as normal or morally just is being contested for the way it reinforces inequality, paternalism or even ignorance. What can thus be seen in the discourse around Live 8 is not a very explicit form of commercialization of morality, but at the same time a strong contestation of the existing discourse and practice around development aid in Africa. Live 8 will now be compared to its predecessor, Live Aid, as well as connected to the theory.

24 Live Aid/8: discursive changes In the previous two subchapters I have made a discursive analysis of news articles and marketing around Live Aid and Live 8. Although the goal of both events was slightly different, they were both organized to raise support for African countries or the continent in general. This means that the discourse found in the marketing and the news coverage of the events is concerned with development aid. If the patterns in the discourse around the two events are compared with one another, two significant changes in the discourse seem to appear: the decline or transformation of the commercialization of morality, and the growing criticism on the development discourse and practice. In this final analytic chapter I will describe these changes along the lines of the theoretical framework outlined in the first chapter, as well as provide possible explanations and influences from the practical reality. First the differences considering a commercialization of morality will be outlined. I have described how colonial structures and attitudes still have their influence on discourse and practice today, specifically in the field of development aid. Various scholars have described how this can display itself through amongst others ‘development as sexy’ and ‘pornography of poverty’. Development as sexy is in this sense understood as presenting development aid and the participation therein as an enhancement of one’s personal image. Pornography of poverty on the other hand is the dramatizing of images of the countries and people one is trying to raise aid for, in order to induce feelings of a moral conscience in the public which will stimulate participation in development aid. As both of these forms of discourse depend on the maximizing of development aid through portraying the aid-givers and –receivers in a certain simplified way, I introduced the synthesized concept of commercialization of morality. This concept combines and reaches further than development as sexy and pornography of poverty, because it focuses on the combined but varied forms in which development aid is commercialized in order to play on the public’s moral conscience and this way induce participation in aid. The discourse in both events was in some degree formed by a commercialization in morality. At the Live Aid event the news articles and marketing were relatively vocal considering its plea to the moral conscience of its audience, through combined practices of development as sexy or pornography of poverty. During Live 8 event, marketing showed more signs of a commercialization of morality than did the news articles, altogether giving the sense that it declined since the previous event. The expressions that are present during Live 8 involve a more explicit reference to a morality or necessity to engage in development aid instead of using metaphors or imagery. These expressions are however nearly exclusively visible in the marketing, whereas the news articles show no

25 significant signs of a commercialization of morality. Overall the commercialization of morality in the discourse around both events has mainly declined over the course of twenty years, besides the turn to more explicit outings when it is still present in the second event. An even more significant change can be seen in the criticism on the portrayal and practice of development aid during both events, also defined as the contestation of discourse. As described, discourse is the language that is used to talk about certain things, always constituted by power relations. Discourse creates a ‘self’ and ‘other’ and thus who or what is normal in a certain power structure. Contestation of this discourse can happen through identification and challenging of the norm and its assumptions, by critiquing, transforming or refusing the language that is used. Any form of contestation of discourse during Live Aid was practically non-existent. Development aid was portrayed as being necessary, with the aid-givers being placed ‘logically’ in the Northern countries. No critique on this discourse was given, although one minor criticism was given on the practice of the events, for they lacked the appearance of African musicians. During Live 8 however, the news articles were filled with a strong critique of both the discourse and the practice of development aid around the event. The lack of participation and voice of African musicians as well as the aid-receivers was pointed out and criticized. The discourse on development aid as seen in portrayals of it being morally just or normal was defied, for its neglect of the agency of the aid-receivers as well as for wrong motives or negative effects of the event. There is thus a large difference in the measure of contested discourse between Live Aid/8. Whereas during the initial event the discourse was seen as legitimate, twenty years later critique was predominant and the ‘normal’ way of talking about development aid was strongly defied. Combined, these two trends show that the discourse on development aid in Africa as seen in the Live Aid/8 events has become less assuming of the necessity for the public to give aid, and more critical to the practice and discourse of development aid. However, some of the marketing tools of the two events show strong similarities, as well as that the news articles on Live 8 still try to invoke moral consciousness in certain cases. This means that although the discourse shows two main trends of difference, there are still similarities that signify the discourse has not been entirely contested and changed. Are there any possible explanations for these changes in discourse over the course of twenty years between the two events? It seems that the discourse around Live Aid still had strong influences from the colonial period, using a language that was paternalistic. In this language development aid is portrayed as necessary, as well as naturally being given by the public addressed. Twenty years later, the paternalistic view was no longer being generally accepted. Criticism had grown significantly, and the discourse

26 itself showed less influence of a colonial attitude. One possible explanation for these changes could be that the deception with and criticism of the effectiveness of development aid had risen in those twenty years. It was no longer seen as certain that development aid had unequivocally positive effects on the people it was meant for. Moreover, some argued that the aid given was even harmful (Moyo 2009: 17). This led to a critique of the way development aid is presented as a just course of action, and a necessary one. Another related explanation is the growing visibility and vocality of African activists and musicians due to (amongst others) technological advancements of the media. Their exposure and criticisms towards the Northern public created a growing realization of the lack of African participation and opinion in development aid in the continent. The post-colonial discourse became increasingly contested by both people from African countries and those perceived to be the necessary aid-givers. These factors could explain why the discourse between Live Aid/8 had changed over twenty years. As I have discussed before, discourse produces a ‘self’ and an ‘other’ in certain power structures: it creates a norm due to which people are either deemed part of the group or an outsider. What can be seen in the discursive changes between the Live Aid/8 events is a contestation and change of this particular discourse, and therefore of the norm that is set and the way people are ‘othered’. First development aid in Africa was presented as a morally right and necessary action, whereas in the later event it was primarily critiqued for its paternalistic view and lack of African voice in the matter. It could thus be said that the norm of how development aid is portrayed and practiced had changed between Live Aid and Live 8. As discourse is not only constituted by but also produces power structures, changes in discourse represent and influence transformation of the context it is embedded in. Thus, the changes in discourse around the two events can be said to have influenced the power structures between the aid-givers and –receivers. Because the discourse became more contested, the structures and relations reminiscent of the colonial period also became more criticized. One example of an actual impact of the contested discourse was the inclusion of African musicians in the Live 8 event, although the way this was organized again became the subject of critique. The changes in discourse were thus able to make a definite change in the context of the events, although the fact that not the entire discourse was transformed meant that these changes were not radical enough for critics to be content. To summarize, the discourse between the Live Aid/8 events did experience significant alterations. However, they were not enough to discard the discourse altogether, maintaining the post-colonial attitude although it was no longer accepted unquestioningly.

28 Conclusion

The Live Aid/8 events were organized on such a scale that the discourse around it portrays an important image of how the general view on development aid in Africa was structured. However, this does not mean that in other sectors of development aid (e.g. NGO activity) the same trends in discourse were happening. Also, due to limitations both in the scope of this thesis and in resources available because of technological changes since the events, I was not able to incorporate in the analysis all forms of discourse around Live Aid/8. For example radio coverage, a large medium in the 80’s, has not been taken into consideration. Although this could have provided interesting results, I am confident that the trends found in this thesis based on the media used are still representative for the discourse on the events. In this thesis I have researched marketing and news articles around the charity events Live Aid/8 to determine whether the discourse on development aid in Africa has changed over the course of twenty years. My findings have shown that there indeed have occurred significant changes between 1985 and 2005, specifically seen in the diminishing of a strong paternalistic attitude towards Africa and the rise of contestation of the existing discourse. However, these trends do not seem to have entirely transformed the language used, as twenty years later there are still signs of a post-colonial way of thinking. As I have argued, discourse serves to sustain and produce certain (unequal) power structures, and creates a norm and an outsider to this norm. This othering was evident in the paternalistic view on Africa, creating a European or Western ‘self’ which was morally obligated to help the African ‘other’ in desperate need of aid. Portraying the relationship between African countries and the West like this is an example of post-colonialism. It presents the ‘need of help’ of people from African countries in a way that is reminiscent of the ‘White Man’s Burden’ of colonial times. However, as my thesis has shown, this discourse became critized and contested over the course of twenty years, in the process also defying the power structures and othering implicit in it. The critique has however not been successful in replacing the discourse altogether for one that constitutes equal relationships between the aid-givers and aid-receivers. As discourse has an impact on the context in reality, this could mean that in 2005 the actual power structures were thus also not equalized, although changes were being made. These findings provide an interesting contribution to research on discourse on development aid in Africa as they show that colonial influence is still prevalent, while simultaneously processes are taking place in which the discourse is increasingly contested. I would like to emphasize that I am not offering an analysis or critique of the practices of development aid, as

29 those were not the subject of research in my thesis. My sole purpose was to examine the discourse on development aid in Africa, and to show in what ways it has changed. Particularly I have focused on the different portrayals of development aid and whether a post-colonial attitude is still prevalent or on the decline. I chose this research subject because of the practical consequences discourse has on reality in shaping power relations and perspectives towards others. By analysing the changes in discourse over time I have tried to contribute to our understanding of how these power relations are influenced and structured by (post)colonialism, but can also be changing due to contestations of the existing discourse. In the analysis of the discourse I also proposed a synthesized concept building forth on existing literature such as ‘development as sexy’ and ‘pornography of poverty’, in the form of a commercialization of morality. My analysis served as a first application of the concept, and has shown to be useful in understanding and explaining trends in discourse on development aid. However, the concept needs to be further explored and adjusted in further research in order to enhance its capacity. For example, it could be tested on other sectors and forms of development aid to see if a commercialization of morality is not only prevalent in the case of Live Aid/8. To conclude my findings and argument in this thesis, I propose to keep contesting popular and general discourse on development aid in Africa which portrays people in African countries as the ‘other’ in desperate need of help from the ‘morally just’ public in Northern countries. By reproducing this discourse, power structures are sustained in which ‘Africans’ are denied agency and voice in their own development. The language used has direct implications for reality, for it creates the subjectivity of people which determines the way interaction between them is structured. Therefore, the discourse should shift towards a ‘we’ in which also the people perceived to be in need of aid are included. They are the ones to determine whether they are actually in need of help, and in what way we could work together to improve both lives and relations between people all over the world. In order to achieve this anti-paternalistic attitude towards development aid, and remove unequal power relations, we need to keep criticizing discourse that sustains it. The colonial period is thankfully long over, but it is due time we realize the post-colonial period should have been history a long time ago as well.

31 Bibliography

Bobgeldof.com (2019). “Live Aid”, http://www.bobgeldof.com/content.asp?section=31. Used 29-04-19. Brantlinger, P. (2007). “Kipling’s ‘the white man’s burden’ and its afterlives”, English Literature in Transition, 1880-1920, 50(2): 172–191. Césaire, A. (1972). Discourse on Colonialism. New York: Montly Review Press [1955]. Cameron, J. & Haanstra, A. (2008). “Development Made Sexy: how it happened and what it means”, Third World Quarterly, 29(8): 1475-1489. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings. Gordon, C. (ed.). New York: Pantheon. Foucault, M. (1982). “The subject and power”, Critical Inquiry, 8(4): 777-795. Foucault, M. (1994). “Two lectures”. In: Michael Kelly, ed. Critique and power: recasting the Foucault/Habermas debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 17–46. Gill, P. (2010). Famine and Foreigners: Ethiopia Since Live Aid. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grant, J. (2015). “Live Aid/8: perpetuating the superiority myth”, Critical Arts, 29(3): 310-326. Halperin, S. & Heath, O. (2017). Political Research. Methods and Practical Skills. Oxford: Oxford University Press [2012]. Lamers, M. (2005). “Representing Poverty, Impoverishing Representation? A Discursive Analysis of a NGOs Fundraising Posters”, Graduate Journal of Social Science, 2(1): 37-74. Lester, A. (2002). “Obtaining the ‘due observance of justice’: the geographies of colonial humanitarianism”, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20(1): 277-293. Lilja, M. & Vinthagen, S. (2014). “Sovereign power, disciplinary power and biopower: resisting what power with what resistance?”, Journal of Political Power, 7(1): 107-126. Live 8 (2019). “Latest news”, https://web.archive.org/web/20050602025221/http://www.live8live.com/news.shtml. Used 01-05-19. Meer, N. (2018). “‘Race’ and ‘post-colonialism’: should one come before the other?”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 41(6): 1163-1181. Mostafanezhad, M. (2013). “‘Getting in Touch with your Inner Angelina’: celebrity humanitarianism and the cultural politics of gendered generosity in volunteer tourism”, Third World Quarterly, 34(3): 485-499.

32 Moyo, D. (2009). Dead Aid. Why aid is not working and how there is a better way for Africa. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Nathanson, J. (2013). “The Pornography of Poverty: Reframing the Discourse of International Aid’s Representations of Starving Children”, Canadian Journal of Communication, 38(1): 103-120. Saïd, E. (1978). Orientalism. London: Routledge. Smillie, I. (1995). The Alms Bazaar. Altruism under fire – non-profit organisations and international development. London: IT Publications. Smith, M. & Yanacopulos, H. (2004). “The public faces of development: an introduction”, Journal of International Development, 16(5): 657-664. Spin (2015). “Live Aid: The Terrible Truth”, https://www.spin.com/featured/live-aid-the-terrible-truth-ethiopia-bob-geldof-feature/. Used 01-05-19. Youngs, I. (2006). “Did Live 8 make a difference?”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5128344.stm. Used 05-05-19.

33 Appendix

Posters P1. Live Aid Memorabilia (2019). “Posters for the concerts in Wembley and Philadelphia”, http://liveaid.free.fr/memorabilia/pages/usaposter-uk.html. Used 01-05-19.

P2. Live Aid Memorabilia (2019). “Posters for the concerts in Wembley and Philadelphia”, http://liveaid.free.fr/memorabilia/pages/usaposter-uk.html. Used 01-05-19.

P3. Live Aid Memorabilia (2019). “Posters for the concerts in Wembley and Philadelphia”, http://liveaid.free.fr/memorabilia/pages/usaposter-uk.html. Used 01-05-19.

P4. Live Aid Memorabilia (2019). “Posters for the concerts in Wembley and Philadelphia”, http://liveaid.free.fr/memorabilia/pages/usaposter-uk.html. Used 01-05-19.

P5. Live Aid Memorabilia (2019). “Posters for the concerts in Wembley and Philadelphia”, http://liveaid.free.fr/memorabilia/pages/usaposter-uk.html. Used 01-05-19.

P6. Movieposter.com (2019). “Live 8 Poster”, https://eu.movieposter.com/poster/MPW- 118507/Live_8.html. Used 01-05-19.

P7. IMDb.com (2019). “Live 8”, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462403/. Used 01-05-19.

P8. Ebay.com (2019). “LIVE 8 2005 Concert Program Book PINK FLOYD U2 COLDPLAY MADONNA LONDON/PHILLY”, https://www.ebay.com/itm/LIVE-8-2005-Concert- Program-Book-PINK-FLOYD-U2-COLDPLAY-MADONNA-LONDON-PHILLY- /200808080034. Used 01-05-19.

36 News articles 1. Teltsch, K. (1985). “Live Aid Turns to Plans for Future”, New York Times, July 20: 9. 2. Fein, E.B. (1985). “‘Live Aid’ Concert Is Aiming for the Sky”, New York Times, July 12: C5. 3. New York Times (1986). “An Unsung Live-Aid Challenge”, September 17: A26. 4. Pareles, J. (2005). “Melding Gravity And Guilt At Live 8”, New York Times, July 4: E1. 5. Pareles, J. (1985). “Hunger Telethon to Be Heard Round the Globe”, New York Times, July 7: 35. 6. New York Times (1986). “Live Aid”, March 16: 215. 7. Freedman, S.G. (1985). “Live Aid and the Woodstock Nation”, New York Times, July 18: C19. 8. Harrison, C.P. (1985). “A Living Demonstration of Live Aid”, New York Times, September 1: LI20. 9. Palmer, R. (1985). “‘Live Aid’ Provided Reunions of 60’s Bands”, New York Times, July 15: C18. 10. Fein, E.B. (1985). “‘Live Aid’ Concert Is Aiming for the Sky”, New York Times, July 12: C5. 11. Esaki, A. (1986). “In Tokyo, Band-Aid, Live-Aid, Lemonade”, New York Times, November 30: 677. 12. New York Times (1985). “Live Aid Concert Total Estimated at $70 Million”, July 16: C16. 13. Warren Weaver Jr., J.F.C. (1985). “Briefing”, New York Times, November 12: A30. 14. Pareles, J. (1985). “New Africa-Aid Efforts”, New York Times, October 1: C12. 15. Tortorella, K. (1986). “Musicians Help Fight Hunger”, New York Times, June 1: 16. 16. Fein, E.B. (1985). “Reports of Concert Aid Range Up to $50 Million”, New York Times, July 15: C18. 17. Werde, B. & Antony, B. (2005). “Live 8's Other Message”, Billboard, Jul 16: 7. 18. Pareles, J. (2005). “Some Hoping And Moping On Big Stage In Britain”, New York Times, July 3: 8. 19. Tonme, J.C. (2005). “All Rock, No Action”, New York Times, July 15: A19. 20. Brandle, L. (2005). “UpFront: Global - Live Aid to Live 8: Bob Geldof Is Back, with Multi- City Anti-Poverty Concerts”, Billboard, June 11: 7. 21. Brandle, L. (2006). “LIVE 8’S LEGACY”, Billboard; July 29: 8. 22. Legrand, E. (2005). “Live 8 Under Attack”, Billboard, June 18: 10. 23. New York Times (2005). “Live 8 Updates”, June 28: E2.

37 24. Legrand, E. (2005). “UpFront: Global - Live 8 Yields A Windfall”, Billboard, November 5: 9. 25. CNN.com (2005). “Millions gather for Live 8”, http://edition.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Music/07/02/live8.main. Used 01-05-19. 26. Jones, G. (2005). “Review: Geldof's Live 8 a rock triumph”, CNN.com, http://edition.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Music/07/03/live8.london.review. Used 01- 05-19. 27. New York Times (1985). “From Woodstock to Philadelphia”, July 16: A22. 28. New York Times (1985). “More Rock Concerts For Hunger Relief”, June 12: C26. 29. New York Times (1985). “10-Hour Paris Concert Raises Famine Aid”, October 14: C20. 30. New York Times (1985). “Famine Aid Channeled”, November 28: C11. 31. New York Times (1985). “Headliners”, July 21: E19. 32. New York Times (1986). “Something New Out of Africa”, June 5: A26. 33. New York Times (1985). “Michael Jackson Project Kept Him From Concert”, July 17: C22. 34. New York Times (1986). “On the Run”, April 11: A29. 35. Maurer, R.J. (1985). “To the Parents of the Children of the 80's”, New York Times, July 23: A26. 36. New York Times (1985). “What Farm Aid Can’t Deliver”, September 25: A18. 37. Palmer, R. (1985). “Rock Flexed Its Social And Political Muscles: Rock Flexes Its Muscles”, New York Times, December 29: H23. 38. Schneider, S. (1985). “Rock Performers Mobilize for a Trans-Atlantic Concert”, New York Times, July 7: H20. 39. Palmer, R. (1985). “Tina Turner, the Main Lady on Tour”, New York Times, July 24: C16. 40. Curtis, C. (1986). “A Rock Effort To Support Man’s Rights”, New York Times, April 15: C13.

38 Other sources O1. The TV Museum (2017). “1 July 1985 BBC2 - Live Aid trailer”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNBQS41Tzd8. Used 01-05-19. O2. Retro Rabbit Ears (2018). “Live Aid Concert TV Commercial From 1985”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y82B-dWyuAw. Used 01-05-19. O3. Wayback machine (2008). “Live 8”, https://web.archive.org/web/20050602025221/http://www.live8live.com/news.shtml. Used 01-05-19.