No word, yet, from the camps of other women who appear in the ad: Oprah Winfrey, Carrie Underwood and Tyra Banks. Although none wear fur. Banks has proclaimed publicly she is anti fur, and has been many years. Oprah was PeTA's person of the year in 2008 for her stance against factory farming and to fight puppy mills. Still, it seems unlikely Winfrey, Underwood and Banks have given their permission to use their images for the ad campaign. Their responses will be revealing of how they feel about cozying up to PeTA. Apparently, the White House wants to maintain their distance. PeTA probably doesn't care what the celebs say, and I'm guilty for doing exactly what they want - giving them attention.
What do you think?
14 Comments
fuzzyscribble said:
I really think they should change their name to "Publicity for the Ethical Treatment of Animals." That...and they may love animals...but sometimes I wonder what they think about women. The "I'd Rather Go Naked" advertising campaign is the reason why I stopped supporting them. But I guess the "I'd rather wear polarfleece" ad didn't provide the same eye-candy. O_o
Steve Dale said:
You know, that is an EXCELLENT point....I think you are right, exploitation of women. And in this instance, exploitation of celebrity.
Caveat Emptor said:
Exploitation comes with the territory of being famous. Someone profited off Britney Spears hair clippings on e-bay, remnants of half-eaten sandwich from a famous singer was saved by waitstaff. People will use anothers fame to profit or push an agenda. Tabloids do just that, and they publish photos and gossip, often extremely unflattering pics, without permission or giving a dime to the celeb. So PETA is not alone in that. Why do celebs get so much free swag? For the chance they throw it on one day and get photographed wearing it, and someone can say "Look, she wears our brand!"
Check out this photo of Tyra Banks with a gigantic bloody steak, PETA would looooove this: http://backseatcuddler.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/peta1.jpg
Sinend said:
It's fraud, pure and simple - which surprises no one familiar with PeTA.
Message from Montie said:
Grown women know better. Anybody with ears knows PETA is going to bank off of anyone who won't wear fur so as soon as they stood in front of this pic, they should've figured out that this shot was going to take off. Hell, the First Lady is in the pic. I'm not sympathizing with any of their complaints on this one.
Pat said:
Not sure what the legalities are of using an image without the person's permission, but it sounds like they could be sued for this. Maybe that would leave PeTA with less money to kill animals.
Caveat Emptor said:
You will recognize it as the First Lady's official White House photograph, available for download on whitehouse.gov
"Pursuant to federal law, government-produced materials appearing on this site are not copyright protected."
Lauren Strec said:
Very interesting comments above. I agree with everyone thus far. This entry is in today's "Hot on ChicagoNow," Steve.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/hot-on-chicagonow/2010/01/hot-on-chicagonow-january-6-2010.html
Caveat Emptor said:
My dislike of PETA aside, I don't find this ad offensive, nor newsworthy. It is clearly a compliment to these ladies. The only reason people have a problem with it is because of who the organization is and what they stand for-- what if it was a more "palatable" group, would anyone mind?
Michelle Obama's secretary volunteered the information she doesn't wear fur, and PETA is using this photo (accurately) of her as an example of fabulous women who don't wear fur. It would be perfectly ok for them to indicate her in print as a woman who doesn't wear fur-- so why is it a problem to use her photo?
IMO the poster doesn't imply an endorsement of PETA. Now, if the poster was titled "These celebs love PETA", that would be different. Imagine if the First Lady DID wear fur and PETA had the gall to put her on a poster in a negative way, hah. Look at the hell PETA gave J. Lo and Beyonce!
Steve Dale said:
Ceaveat, thanks for commenting...the problem, in part, it's not a palatable group to many...and for good reason....They go over the deep end...while over the years, I'm the first to say, they've actually done good...In my view, they're really irrelevant today and extreme (and for the record, I don't wear fur, nor would, nor does my wife)...For example, PeTA has materials to inform the public about the ills of puppy mills...Maybe 10 year ago, maybe, the public didn't know about puppy mills. Today they know. Unfortunately, PeTA does nothing to actually help dogs in puppy mills or to push for legislation, or hands-on rescue...nothing....And if today, they do anything about an issue - it's solely for press attention (and to raise money) but they're not really involved.
Truth is PeTA doesn't very much like that we have 'control' over our animals' domain. And they're hardly a fan of us even having pets. Not sure what the alternative is...Let them go wander on the streets??
I'm not saying it makes sense, I am saying this is what they're about. And with the one chance they had with their own facility, it was a real tragedy for the animals.
At one PeTA protest, picketing at a veterinary conference, I asked a person picketing (with a leash and a dog at the other end), who she goes to when her dog is sick. She said, "the veterinarian." She really had no answer when I asked why she was there....
Here's a post I did a few months back on PeTA ad campaigns:
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/steve-dale-pet-world/2009/12/peta-stunts.html
I do think you are right, they do exploit women. No old men with beards named Morrie in their ad campaigns.
Also, for those who don't think PeTA is nuts, consider things...when President Obama killed that fly during a "60 Minutes" interview, they offered their strong criticisms (personally I wish Obama was as efficient with terrorists as her was at killing the fly, but I digress)...PeTA actually once wrote me complaining about a piece I did on killing fleas. By the way, if I do need to explain (and I shouldn't) fleas spread disease to people and pets...and I like insects, I certainly wouldn't kill and ant or wasp that finds her way into our house.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/steve-dale-pet-world/2009/12/peta-slammed-obama-for-snatching-for-being-fly.html
And Lauren - truly I was thrilled to see me being a hot topic. I think the piece on HSUS (a few blog posts ago) might have been a good one too....
I appreciate that what PeTA did probably is legal because these ladies are all public figures. And, not coincidentally, none would wear fur. That doesn't make it right. They knew people would do - just as we're doing here - talking about...and that's all they want, press attention.
Caveat Emptor said:
@Steve, "Not sure what the alternative is...Let them go wander on the streets??"
Their alternative, or 'diabolical plan', is to euthanize all the animals in shelters and use the money saved to fund spay/neuter programs. You see, they are against no-kill shelters. With mandatory S/N laws also in effect, breeders of any sort banned, dog shows banned, and all shelter dogs euthanized, companion animals will eventually die out. Then we can all live happily and buy humane trap-and-release bubble kits for house flies. And while we're at it, we should all stop bathing, because we are killing living bacterial organisms on our skin, don't they have a right to life?
You could say they have an abolitionist approach. And it's all put out there publicly by PETA, I'm not making it up.
Steve Dale said:
I understand....and I can't fathom anyone with common sense thinks PeTAs approach is sensible...but there are many out there who somehow do.
Steve Dale said:
Great post on my colleague and friend Susan McCullough's blog
http://thealliechronicles.blogspot.com/2010/01/attention-please.html
I agree and appreciate her thoughtful analogy.
PeTA's methods are not by accident - in fact, they're quite tactical. And in many ways effective when it comes to creating a buzz. Not effective whatsoever when it comes to helping animals.
MMS said:
Kind of funny that there is a huge billboard in NY's Times Square, showing President Obama wearing leather......
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/06/times-square-billboard-obama-draws-white-house-ire/
Leave a Comment?
What your comment will look like:
said: