The Latest PETA Stunt

What does everyone think of this?

“MILWAUKEE (AP) - Advertisements that parody the dairy industry’s popular “Got Milk?” ads have outraged New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.
Two billboards by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals depict Giuliani wearing a milk mustache and asking: “Got prostate cancer?” The ad claims a connection between drinking milk and prostate cancer, for which the mayor is being treated.

A study by the Harvard School of Public Health in April raised the possibility that consuming lots of milk and other dairy products could modestly increase the risk of prostate cancer. The study stressed the case was far from settled and recommended further study of calcium’s effects on health.”

Seems to me that this group is composed of (or led by) single minded fanatics who have lost all perspective.

I think in this case PETA knew just what they were doing. You can “outrage” Giuliani by asking him what time it is; he always sues when anyone uses him in an ad.

I think PETA just wanted the publicity of the threatened lawsuit—and that seems to be what they got.

It’s too easy to pick on PETA and it tends to enrage people on this board for no useful purpose. Let the thread die.

Okay, this may be a major hijack, but I think it’s worthwhile (if only because it’ll be hard to find people willing to argue that such an ad isn’t outrageous; PETA tries to be outrageous).
Is PETA arguing that drinking milk is immoral? If so, how do most vegetarians feel about that?
I understand and respect (thought do not personally agree with or follow) the ethic that meat is abuse and murder- that animals are raised in horrible conditions simply to be slaughtered to provide food. Is it a natural extension that drinking milk is just as immoral, because the milk is gathered from these same animals?

As I am not a vegetarian, nor particualrly versed in the vegetarian ethic, I don’t know the answer (to what might be a very stupid question; I apologize if it is), and hope that the vegetarians and animal’s-rightsists of this board can answer it for me.

John,

I believe that the complaint stems from the method employed for the collection of milk. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals do not limit themselves to complaints against killing.

I am not a vegetarian either, but I believe the Party line is; “Animals should not be human’s slaves, therefore we should not raise them to be machines to produce milk for our own consumption.”

From what I’ve read and seen lately, I think Eve is right on the money. How better to get your word out than offend the Hell out of everyone and their mother? Then you get the chance to air your differences in the name of clarification and get your general message accross to a mass audience for free.

Their first few stunts really pissed me off. But the more I look at it, the more I think, ‘Shit. These people really know what their doing to get attention’. The problem, obvioiusly, is what their true intentions are. If they are truly as bad as the billboard and recent articles procaiming their platform suggest, then screw 'em.

But you gotta admidt, they have a knack at being seen and known by the media. Maybe they just want to create an argument in the pysche of America.

One of my biggest complaints concerning PETA’s PR efforts (and one of a small handful of reasons for which I did not renew my membership, some of which I have mentioned before) is their tendency to jump on both junk science reports and unconfirmed/unpublished studies. They reach for the most tenuously phrased arguments showing any link between meat-eating and health risks and blow it out of all proportion, which does nothing to legitimize their arguments.

John, dairy consumption is an issue with which Leigh-Anne and I deal regularly. I suppose our continued consumption of milk and dairy products makes us hypocrites to one degree or another, and I won’t deny that. We do try to limit it as much as we can and still maintain a healthy diet. Given my druthers, I would do without, but it’s more than a little unfeasible, dietarily speaking.

FYI to everyone–in the aftermath of the months-old dustup in the Pit over the “Unhappy Meals” campaign by PETA, McDonalds this week issued new guidelines to their poultry growes/suppliers requiring increased cage space for the birds (50 percent more), and a gradual phasing out of both debeaking and forced molting. Looks like the campaign contributed to the new guidelines; considering that PETA members aren’t exactly McDonalds’ core market, they must have felt this was a sound business decision.

Ya know, I saw the Guiliani ad, and I thought, “My, what a well-reasoned and compelling argument. PETA has won me over!!”

Sua

I hope that PETA established that Rudy Guillane
drank a lot of milk to get prostate cancer,
got permission to use him and paid him for the
ads. Otherwise, they are lying, unethical, and
breaking the law.

The article didn’t mention that they tried to
get the billboards put up in NYC, but nobody
would accept them.

It should also be pointed out that PETA has a bone to pick with Giuliani after he kicked one of their cows out of the Cow Parade this year for being “pornographic.” (It had the words “erectile” and “penis” painted on it, among others, commenting on another unconfirmed study linking meat consumption to impotence. Personally, getting my meat consumed makes me anything but impotent.)

I agree that PETA is masterful at getting attention, but they seem totally ignorant of the way their tactics sit with the average person. If getting people’s attention were the only goal, they’d be wonderfully successful. But if their goal is to get people’s attention and THEN convince them of some argument, they’re pitifully self-defeating.
PETA’s history of this kind of extreme, over-the-top grandstanding, forsaking any other standards of decency or rational thought as long as someone looks at them, leads me to just write them off as a bunch of nut cases. I know I"m not the only one who just dismisses them immediately after taking notice of the latest stunt, not willing to listen to whatever a bunch of cretins have to say.
And mind you, this is coming from a huge animal lover who is normally very receptive to pleas about animal abuse, factory farming, etc. But their strident, sophomoric approach turns me off entirely. Their history of making ridiculous statements has sabotaged their credibility. It’s amazing that an organization this big and well funded could be so determined to turn off the very audience it is trying to influence.
– Greg, Atlanta

but not a vegan. I try to eat only eggs from free range chickens, but they are not always available. I eat dairy products and have visited dairy farms in my area (central Minnesota) and the Dakotas where the cows do not seem to be mistreated, and the farmers seem to have some affection for them, and call them by name.

I think PETA should have asked permission first to use the mayor’s picture (and I absolutely hate those milk mustache advertisements).

But I do admire the motivation of the PETA people, and admire them for their care and concern about non-human inhabitants of the planet.

My dad taught musical expression this way: exaggerate the differences in volume and emphasis at first, and then when this is learned, it can be brought back into good taste. I sometimes think that people with radical views which are gaining media attention, are doing just that (bra burners of the sixties as another example), exaggerating their differences and drawing attention to them (as Eve said) so that people will think about them and learn them well.

On the today show this am, Matt Lauer interviewed the PETA rep. or ** tried ** to. It’s difficult to do an interview like this:
Matt: Did you have Guillane’s permission to use his photo?

PETA: we gave prior notification to Mayor Guillane about the ad, which can be seen at our website…

Matt: so, did he give you permission?

PETA: we advised him of the ad’ s content.

Matt: So you ** didn’t ** have Guillane’s permission, then.

PETA: We gave him prior notification.

Matt: I understand that PETA’S stance is that animals have rights. Doesn’t Mayor Guillane have a right to privacy?

PETA: Drinking milk has been linked …etc etc. etc.

Yes, they are good at getting a message out. Unfortunately, I believe they are even better at alienating people. Folks who are avid meat eaters dismiss them and their arguements out of hand, those who MAY have been willing to listen to a reasoned approach are put off by these sorts of tactics. IMHO.

From my perspective there are two problems with the ad.

First is that there is a right and wrong that goes beyond publicity. It is not right to use the personal troubles of this man to further your ends, even if it will work. (I’ve heard - though not seen - that they altered his face in the photograph for a more dramatic effect.) To look at every issue solely in terms of how succesful it will likely be, is to miss an important part of life. The PETA people are undoubtedly taking this attitude because in their minds animal rights and welfare have come to override all other issues.

Second, is that, as noted earlier by pldennison, the ad makes alot of a very tenous scientific study. It’s not as if PETA is some sort of prostate cancer advocacy group - they couldn’t care less about human’s prostates (as a group - on an individual level, many of their members obviously do). This “anything but the kitchen sink” approach to advocacy does not enlighten the public.

Regarding how succesful such a campaign will be, I would think that publicity is not always enough - you need to make a point. If people become aware of it but react like SuaSponte did, it will not promote anything. Pldennison suggests that an “unhappy meals” campaign was succesful. Not being familiar with this campaign, I ask if was a similar “shock tactic” publicity stunt, or did it genuinely enlighten?

What problem do you have with this thread, goboy?

(As I look at this in preview I see a whole host of new posts, some of which make some of the points that I am making. But I already typed all this up and by golly I will post it!)

Izzy, “Unhappy Meals” was definitely a “shock tactic” campaign, but it can be viewed in the context of an ongoing battle between McDonalds and PETA.

A few years ago, a U.K. court ruled that McDonalds’ poultry suppliers were liable for violations of cruelty laws regarding food animals. When PETA began publicizing that information, McDonald sued them (unsuccessfully) for libel. PETA has been involved ever since trying to get McDonalds to change the way their producers grow poultry.

The “Unhappy Meals” campaign involved handing out, to people willing to take them, a parodic version of a “Happy Meal” box containing, among other things, a Ronald McDonald doll holding a bloodstained butcher’s knife, slaughterhouse pictures, and little plastic animal figures. Many people were incensed over the campaign for targeting children (who are, after all, McDonalds’ real target audience–they advertise to them with anthropomorphized hamburgers, for heaven’s sake!).

I don’t know whether this particular campaign was the proverbial last straw for McDonalds, or if those decisions were already being made, making the campaign superfluous, but they do acknowledge animal activists’ efforts as part of the impetus for the decision.

I applaud any efforts to educate people in the arena of the humane treatment of animals, but PETA has a major PR problem that they need to solve, and it works as a double-edged sword. On the one hand, they present themselves as the preeminent source for information on animal treatment; on the other hand, that means all animal activists get painted with the brush stained by backlash from PETA’s haphazard PR efforts.

pldennison,

In light of your description of the “Unhappy Meals” campaign, I would suggest that the success that it may have had is not likely to be a portent of success with the current campaign. In the unhappy meals case, they were targeting a specific company. Even if many people found the campaign obnoxious, it still amounted to negative publicity for McDonalds. Corporations are very sensitive to this sort of thing, and can be pressured relatively easily in this manner.

On the other hand, the current campaign is not directed at any specific company. Instead it is asking that people change their lifestyle based on the “facts” suggested by the ad. This is not likely to occur if much of the viewership is actually alienated by the message.

Hey at least it’s better than their “got urine” campaign. I came across that while I was eating lunch, and was almost sick.

Woah, never saw that one. Who did it have a picture of, Gandhi?

I’m not a fan of Guilani, but that said, prostate cancer isn’t something to joke about. Um, isn’t it rather insensitive? (not that PETA would EVER be insensitive…oh no!)…sarcasm off

http://www.milksucks.com/prostate.html