PETA members "get it"

[NightLad]

I’m not a fan of PETA, for completely unrelated reasons. However, I am a fan of fair and unbiased reporting, which this website is lacking.

I’m a product of the information age; I read just about everything with a critical eye. (From news reports to the ingredients on cereal boxes) The first thing to do when reading a report is to examine the source. In this case, the source is a website called, “petakillsanimals.” Okay, clearly they have an agenda they want to push. At least they are upfront about it, and I can respect that to a degree. They are also using their name for shock-value and to attract attention; a good advertising move, which will ensure some media coverage. Smart.

However, while reading the site I noticed that a lot of the published information has to do with PETA employees Adria Hinkle and Andrew Cook and their criminal charges. Completely relevant in and of itself, I’ll not argue, but to repeatedly use the case as evidence of PETAs wrongdoings as a whole organization? That’s like saying 2 crooked cops prove the entire legal system is bad.

I’m glad the site has exposed some of the hypocrisies of PETA but I also ask myself… who is paying for it? This isn’t just a grass-roots website created by your average Joe/Jane for the sole purpose of highlighting the hypocrisy of PETA's actions. Consider: this site has billboards, mobile advertisement trucks, full page ads in major newspapers and magazines, TV ads, live media publicity stunts… who is really paying for it? Surely they don’t get enough public donations to support that type of coverage. Just one of these media forums can cost tens of thousands of dollars.

The “about us” section is short and bereft of any real information. But examine the parent organization's website: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/ This site battles things like environmentalism (the depleting ozone is a myth, as is global warming), food additive restrictions (trans fats contributing to heart attacks are a myth, and obesity isn’t really a problem in America), oh, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving are too ‘radical’ for them too.

If I were a cynic, I’d wonder if this blanket organization that would seemingly defend the Corporations’ point of view might not be, in fact, directly funded BY such corporations. Imagine it; an organization willing to take up causes on behalf of the corporations, to defend their points of view and to debase their opponents. They could offer blanket advertising, specific website design for the cause du jour, as well as media coverage via their publications supporting whatever big-business wants to engage them. (And being an official charity means that any money that is 'donated' is tax-free and deductable for... you guessed it! Big businesses!)

I just may wonder about that, if I were a cynic.

In closing I’ll say; PETA mostly sucks, but I don’t hate them, just their arrogance. I think they've long since lost touch with reality on many of their core issues.

PS: My harp has real gut strings.