right or wrong?

[missjef]

http://www.express.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku= 615
do you think that this is right or wrong? i think its wrong even thoughthe money will help, i think the whole idea of the show is wrong.

[B00]

I think that anything that helps an endangered species has to be of good. Raising awareness to their plight surely cant be a bad thing?
According to the article all monies recieved will go to help.

Why do you think it will be a bad idea?

[Miss Inquiry]

As long as the animals are not disturbed whilst filming, and the � raised actually goes to them(rather than greedy presenters/directors) I don't see anything wrong with it.

It will raise awareness and generate � for causes that are often sadly overlooked.

[IggyB]

right - i think the programme makers are trying to reach a wider audience by including aspects of very very popular television (pop idol etc) into what can sometimes be the formulaic production of wildlife programmes which whilst I find them fascinating do not draw the same audience numbers as the phone vote typed formats.

Additionally the species mentioned are more flag ship typed species e.g. if you choose to try and save a polar bear you are thus choosing to save the entire ecosystem and helping a huge range of other animals� and as said anything that can raise awareness to our environmental damage is a good thing

[missjef]

dont get me wrong i thinks its a good way to raise money, and i think its good that the money will help. But i dont like the whole idea of the show, i mean getting celebrities to tell viewers which endangered animal is the right one to vote for, its basically saying that one animal is better than the other which i think is wrong. i think the idea of 'voting' for which animal to save is what is wrong with the show, instead i think it should go to help all the animals not just ones that are 'voted' for by the public.

[luna-tic]

I think that any money truly given to help those creatures in need is a good thing but what I do think is disgusting is the manner in which it has to be raised.It's almost saying, whatever animal is chosen from the votes takes presidence over the others so the others extinction is okay.
All creatures on Earth and especially those close to being wiped out mostly by humans stupidity should be treated with an equal amount of concern and funds to help them stay alive.
We'd want that for our own kind so why not others that inhabit this planet.

[B00]

Ahhh yes, see your point missjef and I agree to an extent, no animal should be considered more worthy to 'save' than another. However if it raises awareness to ALL of them it hopefully will do more good than harm.

[missjef]

im glad you see now, didnt want people thinking i didnt like endangered species!!
i do agree that any money to go to this is good, but its jus tthe way they are doing it.. the whole voting thing is what puts me off.

[Miss Inquiry]

If you vote to put your money to the cause you most want, then I see no harm.
No one is saying elephants are rubbish, vote for the bears. You put your vote/money where your heart is. From what I understand every species will recieve �, the winner gets 50% and the rest get it split equally from what I have read, so hopefully no one will be in the last "loser" place.