PETA says cable networks banned its new ad
Maybe I’m missing something, but this ad, which PETA says has been rejected by Lifetime, CNN, Animal Planet and other networks, doesn’t seem that over the top to me.
In fact, it seems an awful lot like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) ad with Wendy Malick that has been airing on TV with amazing frequency — sad looking animals behind bars, plaintive song in the background, request for donations, free subscription to our monthly magazine.
PETA says it has approached many of the largest cable networks hoping to place its latest ad, which features actor and PETA honorary director James Cromwell.
In an email, PETA said the reasons they were given for the ad being rejected include the group being “too controversial” and that some of the video depicts animals being abused. Apparently showing animals that have been abused is OK, but showing people abusing them is not.
Even so, I don’t see clear instances of the latter in the new PETA ad.
Whatever the case, PETA will get plenty of mileage out of of being able to put the label “banned” on their ad — thereby assuring it a place in blogs such as this one — as they have before, including a Super Bowl ad in 2009 that it says was deemed too sexy for TV.
Posted by jwoestendiek May 17th, 2011 under Muttsblog, videos.
Tags: abuse, ad, advertisement, animal planet, animal welfare, banned, cnn, controversial, cruelty to animals, hsus, james cromwell, lifetime, peta, rejected, sexy, super bowl, television, tv, video
Comments
Comment from smoketoomuch
Time May 19, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Taken to its logical conclusion, the “ethical treatment of animals” would naturally lead to the so-called “Vegan” lifestyle, which is where PETA is coming from in everything they do and say. A noble enough goal I suppose, but certainly not one that is likely to catch on with anything like the majority in this culture in the foreseeable future, ..if ever.
Now, I’m certainly all for the “ethical treatment of animals” bit. I mean, I don’t even like to kill insects found within my home, much preferring to escort them outside whenever possible (a trait which my wife finds most amusing, btw). That said, I do also like a nice New York Strip now and again, am especially fond of bacon and eggs, and really enjoy the smell and texture and usefullness of beautifully worked leather. I am therefore neither a “Vegetarian” nor a “Vegan” and could never see myself in either of those two roles. (More power to those that do / can – I’m not casting aspersions here.)
Should we treat animals (including livestock) better than we do? Absolutely, and I’m all for anything that helps in that regard – short of the complete elimination of animal products from the food we eat and the materials we use.
I also believe that there has to be a better way when it comes to animal testing / experimentation in industry and science, at least, that should be the goal. In short, we should never be cruel, Common Sense should prevail, and we should not take advantage of the voiceless and the defenseless among us.
Further, if PETA had a more moderate and limited agenda, if they eliminated and denounced extreme actions and tactics, they might then have both a larger membership and a more effective voice in the protection of animals, instead of being the polarizing force they seem to have become.
One man’s opinion, for whatever it’s worth.
Comment from Alex
Time May 24, 2011 at 5:04 am
Good news. PETA donates much more money to terrorist groups like ALF then to animal rescue.
Comment from sisko
Time May 17, 2011 at 8:29 am
Ya, well PETA is too controversial as we know and that alone would be a strike against them.
The video itself I find a little over the top. I think they pushed the envelope a bit too much by showing too much. The humane society ads don’t go quite that far in ‘shoving it in your face’.
I think there would be complaints about this video and now that I have seen it, I wouldn’t watch it anymore.
Just my 2 cents