PETA Features Michelle Obama in Ad Without Her Consent
PETA, the animal rights group, is featuring Michelle Obama in an ad with Oprah Winfrey, Carrie Underwood and Tyra Banks without the first lady's permission. PETA's position is that it is honoring her -- and the other stars -- for not wearing fur.
"We did not consent to it," Semonti M. Stephens, a spokesman for Mrs. Obama, told Politics Daily on Wednesday.
Get the new
PD toolbar!
The banners, posted at the Dupont Circle and Friendship Heights subway stations in Washington, are headlined "Fur-Free and Fabulous!" There are also two vans driving around Washington with a similar message, and serving hot soy cocoa.
Stephens has said Mrs. Obama does not wear fur.
PETA President Ingrid Newkirk told Politics Daily on Wednesday that using Mrs. Obama's image is "fair game" because the organization is "reporting a fact . . . that she is fur-free" -- as any news organization would.
"So we are reporting that she is fur-free, which is a fact and our opinion is that makes her pretty fabulous."
The East Wing, she said, "could never give their permission for something like that. It is a compliment to her. We are honoring her, by making her a prime figure with women who have sworn off fur."
The ad campaign will remain up as long as it is cold; that should be awhile.
I asked Newkirk if this wasn't just a publicity stunt. She replied, "That's our job, to put out the message of how animals suffer far and wide."
Groups with shoe-string ad budgets have learned how to leverage a few relatively cheap ads to get national attention. PETA's poster ad buy in Washington, a media center, translated into stories (yes, including this one) in national broadcast, print and Web outlets. The East Wing is not pleased, but if officials complained, it would only generate more publicity.
The exception is when the privacy of the Obama daughters, Malia and Sasha, is at issue. Last August, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine posted advertising posters at Washington's Union Station. The campaign promoting healthy school lunches referred to the Obama girls. The posters stayed up despite calls from White House lawyers to take them down and spokesman Robert Gibbs calling them a "publicity stunt."
If we didn't know it already, here is even more proof. At what time did they even remotely think that this was a good idea? It does not appear they got the other Celebrities permission either.
Hapan Battle Dragons Rule!
When you want peace prepare for war! --Confusious
That was disapointing ..Should we show this Federation how to build a ship so we may have worthy foes? Typhonis 1
The Prince of The Writer's Guild|HAB Spacewolf Tank General| God Bless America!
Well, on the one hand, they're showing her in an entirely positive light.
On the other hand...using the images of several of the most powerful women in our society, without their consent, when you are an organization with as many skeletons in your closet (or refrigerator) as PETA? Not the brightest idea in the slightest.
PETA is an agitator group. Agitators swear by the adage that "the only bad publicity is no publicity". I don't see why anyone would think they're stupid for doing this. It actually seems quite clever to me; any controversy over their use of these images would only create more publicity, and they're not strictly in breach of the law.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Molyneux wrote:Well, on the one hand, they're showing her in an entirely positive light.
On the other hand...using the images of several of the most powerful women in our society, without their consent, when you are an organization with as many skeletons in your closet (or refrigerator) as PETA? Not the brightest idea in the slightest.
Someone uninformed could easily misconstrue it as an endorsement. Depending on whose image they use they could actually damage the person's reputation whether it's "positive" or not.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Were I a celebrity I know damn well I wouldn't want to be associated with PETA due to their idiotic practices even if I do agree that hunting species for their fur is wrong.
And in any case they should ask permission for good will's sake alone.
"No it's just Anacrap coming to whine and do nothing." -Mike Nelson on Anakin Skywalker
General Zod wrote:Someone uninformed could easily misconstrue it as an endorsement. Depending on whose image they use they could actually damage the person's reputation whether it's "positive" or not.
Someone could also misconstrue the message. For example, "fur free" could be miscontrued as an endorsement for Brazilian waxing.
Time makes more converts than reason. -- Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
