Anyway, because I'm not a fan of PETA I shot back an email criticising them thinking no one was going to ever see it, but in the case that someone did, at least my opinion was heard. I certainly didn't expect a response, but I got one. And I responded again. If you want to see this email from them trying to justify why they do what they do, feel free to contact me and I'll send it to you. Below is my last reply, which includes and exerpt of their response. I'm orange, Peta's red.
To Quote your message: "...However, when we attach a gimmick, that very same animal abuse ends up in newspapers and on televisions nationwide. After PETA publicized our provocative [sic]“State of the Union Undress,” for example, we were rated the number one [sic]“mover” on Yahoo’s search engine, meaning that PETA received the greatest percentage increase of terms searched that day. Experience has taught us that controversial, attention-grabbing campaigns make the difference between keeping important yet depressing subjects invisible and having them widely seen. The alternative is to be ignored in the torrent of tabloid-style stories that dominate the popular press...
However, PETA does make a point of having something for all tastes, from the most conservative to the most radical and from the most tasteless to the most refined, and this approach has proved amazingly successful—in the more than two decades since PETA was first founded, it has grown into the largest animal rights group in the world, with more than two million members and supporters worldwide."
This is where my response starts,
Animal Abuse is not what ends up in papers, which is the point I was trying to make. Your tactics supersede your message and take the forefront in media coverage. What the public sees are people who seem to have lost sense and common decency toward other human beings, a mentality which they absolutely cannot identify with; not to mention your criticism pops up only intermittently, which makes your presence in the media nothing but a distraction to be amused by and quickly forgotten. If you're going to go with the "gimmick" excuse then create a gimmick every day, if you're so impassioned by your cause then why don't you, as an organization, tirelessly work to publicize yourselves more often? Word of mouth, in any business or organization, is the key to success. Try doing things without the direct intent of media recognition to "spread your message", but rather to engender people to make a difference and change. E-mail, by the way, isn't going to do it.
You need to get out and meet people and discuss with them face-to-face what your message really is and why animal cruelty needs to be stopped and explain how pervasive it is. There are so many ways to do this in a mature and dignified fashion that don't reflect poorly on your organization. Once word-of-mouth buzz gets started and inspired people talk to others, and inspire them, it can't be stopped. The media will be ASKING you for interviews, instead of mentioning your childish behavior as an afterthought before the commercial break.
You may have been rated the "number one 'mover'" on Yahoo, but for how long, was it at least a day? And how many people did you recruit, and how many of them are actually going to be active participants instead of supportive bystanders?
I don't know what else to say to you in order to convey how wrong and illogical your theories for the change of this problem are; It doesn't make any sense to think only of flash-in-the-pan attention and coverage when what you want is a deeply dedicated group of people who will change the mindset of a nation and other parts of the world.
-- Marisa Swanson
So, what do you think? Feel free to comment, not that anything you say is likely to change my mind :)
