'Animal welfare organisation Peta is known for pushing boundaries with their ads - but their recent ad campaign went too far. Before it could reach the public, London Buses banned the foundation’s new ad due to the “offensive” nature of the content.
'Picturing a gruesome image of a cooked dog head, garnished with apples and grapes, along with the words, “If you wouldn’t eat your dog, why eat a turkey? Start a new tradition. Go Vegan,” it is no wonder the advert was banned.'
you can argue the toss about the merits of such an ad campaign but what interests me here is the subtle way that the animal welfare stance is undermined by the misrepresenting of its acronym.
the reporter reports 'Peta', when in fact the organisation is known everywhere in type as 'PETA'.
the uppercase adds a certain something. i'm tempted to say 'authority' but i wouldnt want to endorse that idea as there's way too much shouting in the world as it is. i think really it's more that the reporter just doesnt care enough to get such an important thing - the defence of animals - right. or, that some more conscious spiteful destruction / misrepresentation reflects ideological hostility.
i have long associated 'PETA' (uppercase) with an ad campaign i liked when i first became aware of the organisation - the dumb animals ads showing women wearing fur - and now 'Peta' with chelSEA ritSChel who stated in her article that 'it is no wonder the advert was banned' - a piece of judgmental piety that seems to be against animal welfare and against my own sense of right and wrong.