Thursday, March 5, 2009


Personally, I feel that imagery is easily taken too far when it deals with fiction. Horrific images are displayed on network television nightly. People are killed, raped and maimed in front of us, but real images from PETA are often considered too graphic for primetime television. Why are we, as a society, comfortable with fictitious images of cruelty, but condemn PETA for displaying non-fiction?
Subconsciously we might know that crimes committed on television are fake, thus making us okay with watching it. I say, worry about what is really happening instead of subjecting oneself to the “pretend” stresses of fictional drama.
Animals are actually dying because of neglect and overpopulation. This is a fact, yet so many people cry extremism when it comes to PETA’s powerful videos. Think about, PETA does not condone violence of any kind. It refrains from abusive protests and normally launches campaigns on its website. Not exactly a flag burning type of organization. We, the public, have the choice to visit PETA’s website and subject ourselves to its views.
PETA probably uses extreme visuals to grasp the attention of those even partially interested. Yes, the images could potentially turn off potential supporters, but polarization—even peaceful—tends to draw attention. Taking one side or another has come to a head in the U.S. post September 11th and I believe that PETA has (to some extent) jumped on the bandwagon of the “with or against us” mentality. Conversely, it has used powerful images and campaigns to reach out to those interested in animal welfare and pet overpopulation. But has done so in a peaceful manner.

No comments:

Post a Comment