6:05 PM
PETA
is at it again. This time, however, they aren’t throwing powder on celebrities
wearing fur or posting billboards of nude celebrities who opt to take a stand
with them. They are simply opposing an “offensive” ad. Because it’s PETA, this
outcry was destined to make front page news.
The
Wednesday food section of New York Times displayed a chicken ad. The chicken
was posed seductively, almost as if it were a pin-up girl. It was laying on its
side with its arm propping up the body and one leg crossed over the other. The
headline for the ad said, “Chicken’s Attraction Is Truly Skin Deep.”
Naturally,
PETA found this ad offensive.
“When
I saw it I just couldn't believe that an editor of 'The New York Times' would
find it acceptable,” said PETA’s president, Ingrid Newkirk.
The
ad, while positioned a little seductively, seemed perfectly harmless to me. But
then again, I am not a member of PETA. I agree that there should be a group
that takes a stand against animal cruelty and even the unsafe conditions of
most animal feedlots. I do not agree in taking it to the extremes.
The
article I read does not say who the advertisement belonged to, nor does it tell
its readers if the organization practices unsafe breeding or slaughter. So
then, where is PETA’s problem? I think PETA has a knack for going overboard and
that the media is partly to blame for this. Every time they do go overboard,
they seemed to get a good amount of media attention.
I
agree with a lot of what the organization stands for. I don’t agree with its
actions. And in this case, I believe PETA is making a mountain out of a
molehill. The ad really doesn’t seem all that harmful or disrespectful. It’s an
ad. And because of media attention, PETA is getting exactly what they wanted:
headline news.
While
it may help the organization with awareness, in this case, the coverage is
completely uncalled for. PETA’s stance, in my opinion, isn’t really aimed at
anything that would require media coverage. It’s funny that the organization is
even protesting the ad considering that the article goes on to explain that
PETA is launching its own “seductive” campaign in the form of a pornography
site. This site will carry the same concept as the billboard ads, showing off
naked celebrities to further endorse their message.
Really,
PETA? Now isn’t that slightly hypocritical? It seems like the whole complaint
for this ad was its focus on sex. Ingrid Newkirk even went on to compare it to “necrophilia.”
However, PETA has been known to do the same thing. And thanks to an
inappropriate amount of media coverage, their agenda has been pushed and has
officially made headline news.
Newsworthy
news should make news. Just because it’s PETA, doesn’t mean it’s news.
Sources:
0 Responses to "PETA Gets Offended"
Post a Comment