Specifically, he said:
Well, I think if you’re going to focus on the similarities of your three examples, it’s almost as if an inherant goofiness is key for the spreading phenomenon. Mel Gibson drunk? That’s goofy. Zidane with the headbutt? Also goofy. Maybe that’s why something like 0.7% won’t work – can you really make something like that goofy?
Although, come to think of it, that post did immediately follow a rejected science humour piece about him. And the email address left, without giving it out, does sort of make sense in a clever Bono-ish sort of way.
Still, whatever the identity (and BTW, if it is the real Bono – want to do an interview?), the comment left was pretty deft.
Especially when you take a moment to look more closely at these viral things, and you decide specifically to look via wiki. If you do, what you come across is a page about internet phenomenons (thanks RPM), which in turn has an extensive list of things that somehow exhibited this infectious public notoriety.
So let’s run down a partial list…
O.K. so Bono might be on to something. Dammit! Not only does he get to be an International rock icon, but he also gets to be a sharp media critic!
Anyway, to me, the doubly interesting thing is that if you run down that full listing on the wiki site, there’s really nothing at all meaty in the social responsibility department – nothing really concerning making folks smarter, saving the world, doing good, etc, etc, etc. I mean, seriously, can you really see 0.7% and world poverty being comfortable up there in that same list?
Still, I’m not sure if that is just the nature of the situation, or perhaps it’s got more to do with media labeling. i.e. it doesn’t make that kind of news or become the water cooler phenomenon unless it’s a bit on the silly, banal, embarrassing or trivial side.
Whatever the case may be, it makes something like 0.7% even more of a challenge. But that’s o.k. – we scientific types like challenges, right?