Thursday 4 February 2010

It’s Not Often I Go To Bat For PETA…

…but this is going to be one such occasion:
A poster on animal cruelty showing the killer of Baby Peter has been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority.
Why? Did they lie? Mislead the public? Was the advert obscene?
The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) poster featured an image of Steven Barker and said animal abusers were also violent to people.
Ah. Well, that’s not a lie, it’s certainly backed up by research. So, what was their objection?
The watchdog ruled that Barker's picture was used in a "shocking way merely to attract attention".
Say what..? Pardon my ignorance, but isn’t that the whole point of such an advert?
It said: "We noted that, although Baby P died in August 2007, his death was a high-profile, emotive case which continued to get extensive press coverage. "We acknowledged that some people might therefore find the reference to the Baby P case in the poster exploitative. "We considered that the claim and image used in the ad had been used in a shocking way merely to attract attention and that the reason did not justify the means in this case. "We therefore also considered that the ad was likely to cause serious offence and distress to some people."
Oh, goody! Then I can complain to ASA about those ghastly charity appeals that litter my magazines with images of babies with cleft palates then, can I? Because I can see no good reason for them, they are distressing and exploitative and merely used in a shocking way to attract attention. And if you are going to allow them... Disclaimer: opinion blog-owner's own. Other opinions are available.
at

6 comments:

  1. Obnoxio The Clown4 February 2010 at 08:51

    And how does it feel to bat for the other side? ;o)

    ReplyDelete
  2. JuliaM4 February 2010 at 08:56

    Less...moist...than I'd anticipated! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Letters From A Tory4 February 2010 at 09:16

    It is a bit random, connecting Baby P to animal cruelty, but 'random' doesn't appear to be against the rules....

    ReplyDelete
  4. Roue le Jour4 February 2010 at 09:48

    My understanding is that there is a strong link between torturing animals as a child and doing the same thing to people as an adult.

    If my understanding is correct, then it's a fair enough point. However, I still have no objection to the wearing of fur coats.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sue4 February 2010 at 10:34

    Perhaps we should also complain about all those horrible photos they use to stop people smoking too.... or aren't they meant to attract attention?

    ReplyDelete
  6. JuliaM5 February 2010 at 05:54

    "If my understanding is correct, then it's a fair enough point. However, I still have no objection to the wearing of fur coats."

    Me neither, so long as they've been raised to fur industry standards. What's wrong with it? People wear leather, and what's that but fur minus the hair?

    "Perhaps we should also complain about all those horrible photos they use to stop people smoking too..."

    Now, there's another good idea!

    ReplyDelete