We learned long ago that PETA (People For the Ethicial Treatment of Animals) will do just about anything for publicity, even using a semi-nude model to draw attention to one of its campaigns.
In Des Moines, Iowa, Katy Robertson, an actress from South Africa, posed topless in front of a sign decrying cruelty to circus animals. With chains on her legs and arms and fake stripes placed on her bare back to simulate the whip marks trainers inflict on their animals Robertson says she "exposed a little skin to expose the cruelty to circus animals." She says, "I'm proud of doing this, and it's the most worthwhile thing I could be doing."
What she failed to mention that when you're an aspiring actress, getting a little publicity for a charitible cause doesn't hurt even if it means flashing your tits to do it.
While the photo of Robertson isn't going to be one that young boys take into the john to whack off it does show that PETA is not above titilation to bring out the cameras. And it's not the first time. The organization has used a nude Cindy Crawford in previous campaigns, although PETA then denounced Crawford after she signed on to model fur. Other prominent actresses and models, have also been all-to-willing to show a little T&A in the name of PR.
It seems that the criticism of PETA's use of provocative ads to get their message across is misguided. Virtually every product or service marketed in this country employs provocative imagery. Subtlety in advertising is not often found, given the increasing courseness of this society. It's almost required that some type of visual assault be used to even get one's attention. Flowery text alone just won't cut it.
PETA has stooped pretty low on occasion, as have many other organizations. Nonetheless, the particular ad campaign in question certainly does not rise to a particularly heinous level. In addition, the criticism of using an aspiring actress for the ad is puzzling. It's impossible to discern who the "model" is, so there is not likely to be scads of job offers coming her way ("what a great back you have, honey; how'd you like to star in our next film?").
That other "actresses and models" have been willing to pose for an organization as controversial as PETA says more about the attraction of PETA's mission than the motivation of those who pose for them.
I value Capitol Hill Blue, and look forward to your usually valuable articles and opinions. There really seems to be little substance or value in this piece, however.
Sorry but the "everybody does it" excuse is the oldest cop-out in the book. I don't like cheap tricks to get publicity and PETA is all too often the queen of cheap tricks.
You can make excuses for them if you want. I can't.
I really hate to disagree with you, Doug. I think your 'Rants' are spot-on (please keep em going), but come on. If 'everybody does it' is a cop-out, then why do you post to a website? Why not print flyers or walk the streets with a sandwich board? Not everyone does that. And if PETA's methods are so bad, how about some suggestions as to ways to get their message across that aren't such "cheap tricks?" I didn't see any in your piece. It seems your problem is less with their methods than their message. To each his own, I guess.
I fail to see your analogy. Trying to excuse exploitation because "every does it" is the same as posting to a web site? Give me a break. And, I was posting to web sites before "everybody else." Capitol Hill Blue was on the web first (started in 1994). If "everybody's doing it," then they are doing so because we started doing it first.
See? Now you've made me so upset I may have to go out and shoot a puppy dog. Where's my gun?
Doug
I don't understand. I didn't see anything wrong with the ad. I don't like PETA but the ad was nothing ... ???