Guest guest Posted February 8, 2003 Report Share Posted February 8, 2003 Hi. Did anyone else see the hatchet job that John Stossel (20/20) did on PETA last night? It was a *very* biased piece, focusing on the most extreme and contentious things that PETA has been involved with (such as raising money for the legal defense of someone who blew up an animal research facility) and leaving out anything that didn't support his thesis that PETA is a bunch of lunatics. The piece opens showing a rat and says something along the lines of " PETA doesn't want any studies done on this rat, even if they would save your life " . It's true that PETA is against all animal experimentation, but of course there is no mention of all of the gratuitous, redundant animal experiments or of any of the problems of extrapolating from rats to humans. The whole segment is lke this. They showed PETA storming the catwalk where a model who had advertised fur was walking. What they didn't tell you is that the organizer of the fashion show agreed with PETA, as did the model (Heidi Klum I think) and I think she said she didn't know her likeness was using to sell fur or something and she wanted it stopped. Also, they mentioned PETA's campaign against the cruelty practiced by KFC, but did not bother to mention how PETA's efforts have resulted in real improvements in the lives and deaths of animals killed for Burger King, McDonald's and Safeway. Instead, Stossel complained about how tax payers had to pay to clean up the red paint that was left on the sidewalk by protesters. These are just a few examples, but you get the idea. (By the way, just as a side note, John Stossel is the same reporter who got in a lot of trouble last year for outright LYING about how organic produce has as much pesticide residues as conventional. He was forced to publicly apologize, although he said there had been some " mistakes " , not that he lied.) His segment on 20/20 is entitled " Give me a Break! " He goes after what he thinks are ridiculous excesses. I think we need to ask 20/20 to " give us a break " from the damaging garbage that Stossel puts out! If you go to the 20/20 website http://abcnews.go.com/Sections/2020/index.html it says <A HREF= " http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/Stossel_gmabPETA030207.html " >PETA Peeve</A> John Stossel says " Give Me a Break " to animal rights extremists. • <A HREF= " http://boards.abcnews.go.com/cgi/abcnews/request.dll?LIST & room=stossel " >Wh\ at do you think?</A> Stephanie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2003 Report Share Posted February 9, 2003 This is awful - so many people watch 20/20 and believe what they hear. Be sure to send letters to 20/20 and dispute Stossel's claims. I didn't catch the segment, but I'll try to find a transcript. -Rose At 02:44 PM 2/8/03 -0500, inthepresent wrote: >Hi. Did anyone else see the hatchet job that John Stossel (20/20) did on >PETA last night? It was a *very* biased piece, focusing on the most extreme >and contentious things that PETA has been involved with (such as raising >money for the legal defense of someone who blew up an animal research >facility) and leaving out anything that didn't support his thesis that PETA >is a bunch of lunatics. > The piece opens showing a rat and says something along the lines of > " PETA doesn't want any studies done on this rat, even if they would save your >life " . It's true that PETA is against all animal experimentation, but of >course there is no mention of all of the gratuitous, redundant animal >experiments or of any of the problems of extrapolating from rats to humans. > The whole segment is lke this. They showed PETA storming the catwalk >where a model who had advertised fur was walking. What they didn't tell you >is that the organizer of the fashion show agreed with PETA, as did the model >(Heidi Klum I think) and I think she said she didn't know her likeness was >using to sell fur or something and she wanted it stopped. > Also, they mentioned PETA's campaign against the cruelty practiced by >KFC, but did not bother to mention how PETA's efforts have resulted in real >improvements in the lives and deaths of animals killed for Burger King, >McDonald's and Safeway. Instead, Stossel complained about how tax payers had >to pay to clean up the red paint that was left on the sidewalk by protesters. > These are just a few examples, but you get the idea. > (By the way, just as a side note, John Stossel is the same reporter who >got in a lot of trouble last year for outright LYING about how organic >produce has as much pesticide residues as conventional. He was forced to >publicly apologize, although he said there had been some " mistakes " , not that >he lied.) > His segment on 20/20 is entitled " Give me a Break! " He goes after what >he thinks are ridiculous excesses. I think we need to ask 20/20 to " give us >a break " from the damaging garbage that Stossel puts out! > If you go to the 20/20 website >http://abcnews.go.com/Sections/2020/index.html > it says > <A > HREF= " http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/Stossel_gmabPETA030207.html " >PETA > Peeve</A> >John Stossel says " Give Me a Break " to animal rights extremists. > • <A > HREF= " http://boards.abcnews.go.com/cgi/abcnews/request.dlll?LIST & room=stossel " >W\ hat > do you think?</A> > > Stephanie > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2003 Report Share Posted February 9, 2003 This is apparently the transcript (as noted in the bottom of the original post): http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/Stossel_gmabPETA030207.html (John Stossel is an @$$ anyway, his hit piece on organic foods a while back really burned me up. I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth.) Rose Aguilar wrote: > > This is awful - so many people watch 20/20 and believe what they hear. > > Be sure to send letters to 20/20 and dispute Stossel's claims. I didn't > catch the segment, but I'll try to find a transcript. > > -Rose > > At 02:44 PM 2/8/03 -0500, inthepresent wrote: > >Hi. Did anyone else see the hatchet job that John Stossel (20/20) did on > >PETA last night? It was a *very* biased piece, focusing on the most extreme > >and contentious things that PETA has been involved with (such as raising > >money for the legal defense of someone who blew up an animal research > >facility) and leaving out anything that didn't support his thesis that PETA > >is a bunch of lunatics. > > The piece opens showing a rat and says something along the lines of > > " PETA doesn't want any studies done on this rat, even if they would save your > >life " . It's true that PETA is against all animal experimentation, but of > >course there is no mention of all of the gratuitous, redundant animal > >experiments or of any of the problems of extrapolating from rats to humans. > > The whole segment is lke this. They showed PETA storming the catwalk > >where a model who had advertised fur was walking. What they didn't tell you > >is that the organizer of the fashion show agreed with PETA, as did the model > >(Heidi Klum I think) and I think she said she didn't know her likeness was > >using to sell fur or something and she wanted it stopped. > > Also, they mentioned PETA's campaign against the cruelty practiced by > >KFC, but did not bother to mention how PETA's efforts have resulted in real > >improvements in the lives and deaths of animals killed for Burger King, > >McDonald's and Safeway. Instead, Stossel complained about how tax payers had > >to pay to clean up the red paint that was left on the sidewalk by protesters. > > These are just a few examples, but you get the idea. > > (By the way, just as a side note, John Stossel is the same reporter who > >got in a lot of trouble last year for outright LYING about how organic > >produce has as much pesticide residues as conventional. He was forced to > >publicly apologize, although he said there had been some " mistakes " , not that > >he lied.) > > His segment on 20/20 is entitled " Give me a Break! " He goes after what > >he thinks are ridiculous excesses. I think we need to ask 20/20 to " give us > >a break " from the damaging garbage that Stossel puts out! > > If you go to the 20/20 website > >http://abcnews.go.com/Sections/2020/index.html > > it says > > <A > > HREF= " http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/Stossel_gmabPETA030207.html " >PETA > > Peeve</A> > >John Stossel says " Give Me a Break " to animal rights extremists. > > • <A > > HREF= " http://boards.abcnews.go.com/cgi/abcnews/request.dlll?LIST & room=stossel " >W\ hat > > do you think?</A> > > > > Stephanie0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2003 Report Share Posted February 12, 2003 I have a concern that PETA will never be taken seriously by the mainstream as long as they continue to use those kind of shock-value tactics. All the public can feel is their angry self-righeousness, and it is rather off-putting, so the message never gets through and all their good works are ignored. Note from the piece below on non-violence that violent tactics tend to harm the groups and movements using violence. " It destroys public sympathy, reinforces public prejudices against activists, invites police infiltration and harassment, and gives the state an excuse to arrest, imprison and even kill innocent activists and bystanders. Even advocacy of violence can have a detrimental effect on organizing since it divides and demoralizes activists and provides the government and media an excuse to attack the advocates. " There was a guy who came to East West Books for a talk on his book about how successful movements based upon non-violence had been. They take time to manifest change, but in the end, big change happens. Many people during the 20th century were inspired by Ghandi -- Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandella, etc. " The purpose of non-violent action is to withdraw consent from government or other authorities, rather than wrest power from them. Therefore it fosters dialogue and education and allows maximum participation by everyone in society. Non-violence heightens the moral superiority of the actionists in the eyes of the general public--especially if the authorities respond to their sincere and open protest with violence. Even members of the ruling classes can be swayed to sympathy by such non-violent actions. Police and soldiers wooed with sound political arguments and non-violent demonstrations are more likely to come over to the side of the activists than ones afraid of being shot and killed by protesters. " If I were running PETA, I would a) study the characteristics of successful and failed non-violence movements to learn from each of them; b) change the name of the organization for a clean start; c) adopt a strategy based upon non-violence and d) change the world. The following is from http://www.secession.net/nv-decentralism.html " Superiority of Non-Violent Action Gandhi, Martin Luther King, numerous activists and non-violent scholars like Gene Sharp (author of " The Politics of Non-Violent Action " and " National Security through Civilian-based Defense " ) and Barbara Bondurant ( " The Conquest of Violence " ) have argued and illustrated the superiority of non-violent to violent action. The purpose of non-violent action is to withdraw consent from government or other authorities, rather than wrest power from them. Therefore it fosters dialogue and education and allows maximum participation by everyone in society. Non-violence heightens the moral superiority of the actionists in the eyes of the general public--especially if the authorities respond to their sincere and open protest with violence. Even members of the ruling classes can be swayed to sympathy by such non-violent actions. Police and soldiers wooed with sound political arguments and non-violent demonstrations are more likely to come over to the side of the activists than ones afraid of being shot and killed by protesters. Political violence harms groups and movements. It destroys public sympathy, reinforces public prejudices against activists, invites police infiltration and harassment, and gives the state an excuse to arrest, imprison and even kill innocent activists and bystanders. Even advocacy of violence can have a detrimental effect on organizing since it divides and demoralizes activists and provides the government and media an excuse to attack the advocates. Violent action usually is practiced predominantly by angry young men, often with military training, who often become as ruthless towards other dissidents as they do towards the oppressor. These days the most vocal advocates of violence are often government provocateurs. When violent revolutionaries take power, their regimes usually are as ruthless as their revolutions. Non-violent non-cooperation by large numbers of people is more disruptive to the state than violence by smaller numbers; violence only permits the state to enhance its power. Overall, non-violent action results in the least loss of life and property, the least destruction of the social fabric and the greatest assurance that post-resistance society will be free and peaceful. In the last twenty years relatively non-violent mass movement-- " people power " -- overthrew the Shah in Iran, Marcos in the Philippines, apartheid in South Africa, Suharto in Indonesia, and brought about freedom for Eastern Europe and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Most of these activists were at least aware of the success of the efforts of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Some leaders of these movements studied or were trained in non-violence . Today, organizations like Non-violence International, International War Resisters League and Peacekeepers International are continuing to spread these ideas and strategies worldwide. " Susan Rose Aguilar [rose] Saturday, February 08, 2003 7:02 PM Re: [sFBAVeg] PETA on 20/20-what a " hit piece " This is awful - so many people watch 20/20 and believe what they hear. Be sure to send letters to 20/20 and dispute Stossel's claims. I didn't catch the segment, but I'll try to find a transcript. -Rose At 02:44 PM 2/8/03 -0500, inthepresent wrote: >Hi. Did anyone else see the hatchet job that John Stossel (20/20) did on >PETA last night? It was a *very* biased piece, focusing on the most extreme >and contentious things that PETA has been involved with (such as raising >money for the legal defense of someone who blew up an animal research >facility) and leaving out anything that didn't support his thesis that PETA >is a bunch of lunatics. > The piece opens showing a rat and says something along the lines of > " PETA doesn't want any studies done on this rat, even if they would save your >life " . It's true that PETA is against all animal experimentation, but of >course there is no mention of all of the gratuitous, redundant animal >experiments or of any of the problems of extrapolating from rats to humans. > The whole segment is lke this. They showed PETA storming the catwalk >where a model who had advertised fur was walking. What they didn't tell you >is that the organizer of the fashion show agreed with PETA, as did the model >(Heidi Klum I think) and I think she said she didn't know her likeness was >using to sell fur or something and she wanted it stopped. > Also, they mentioned PETA's campaign against the cruelty practiced by >KFC, but did not bother to mention how PETA's efforts have resulted in real >improvements in the lives and deaths of animals killed for Burger King, >McDonald's and Safeway. Instead, Stossel complained about how tax payers had >to pay to clean up the red paint that was left on the sidewalk by protesters. > These are just a few examples, but you get the idea. > (By the way, just as a side note, John Stossel is the same reporter who >got in a lot of trouble last year for outright LYING about how organic >produce has as much pesticide residues as conventional. He was forced to >publicly apologize, although he said there had been some " mistakes " , not that >he lied.) > His segment on 20/20 is entitled " Give me a Break! " He goes after what >he thinks are ridiculous excesses. I think we need to ask 20/20 to " give us >a break " from the damaging garbage that Stossel puts out! > If you go to the 20/20 website >http://abcnews.go.com/Sections/2020/index.html > it says > <A > HREF= " http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/Stossel_gmabPETA030207.html " > PETA > Peeve</A> >John Stossel says " Give Me a Break " to animal rights extremists. > * <A > HREF= " http://boards.abcnews.go.com/cgi/abcnews/request.dlll?LIST & room=stosse l " >What > do you think?</A> > > Stephanie > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2003 Report Share Posted February 16, 2003 Susan, sorry it took a few days to comment about your recent post but I didn't want it to pass without telling you how much I appreciate your thoughtful and pragmatic essay against the use of violence in the animal rights movement. I couldn't agree more. I recently attended a speech by Rod Coronado and a representative of the British Animal Liberation Front in which they advocated violence and taught the audience how to make firebombs. I was outraged, especially when I saw members of the audience whom I knew applauding this lunacy. As long as some members of our animal rights community continue to advocate abhorrent acts of violence the entire movement is at risk for being labeled terrorists. Nothing would please those who oppose our movement more than that. - BARNEY,SUSAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) 'Rose Aguilar' ; Tuesday, February 11, 2003 4:38 PM RE: [sFBAVeg] PETA on 20/20-what a " hit piece " I have a concern that PETA will never be taken seriously by the mainstream as long as they continue to use those kind of shock-value tactics. All the public can feel is their angry self-righeousness, and it is rather off-putting, so the message never gets through and all their good works are ignored. Note from the piece below on non-violence that violent tactics tend to harm the groups and movements using violence. " It destroys public sympathy, reinforces public prejudices against activists, invites police infiltration and harassment, and gives the state an excuse to arrest, imprison and even kill innocent activists and bystanders. Even advocacy of violence can have a detrimental effect on organizing since it divides and demoralizes activists and provides the government and media an excuse to attack the advocates. " There was a guy who came to East West Books for a talk on his book about how successful movements based upon non-violence had been. They take time to manifest change, but in the end, big change happens. Many people during the 20th century were inspired by Ghandi -- Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandella, etc. " The purpose of non-violent action is to withdraw consent from government or other authorities, rather than wrest power from them. Therefore it fosters dialogue and education and allows maximum participation by everyone in society. Non-violence heightens the moral superiority of the actionists in the eyes of the general public--especially if the authorities respond to their sincere and open protest with violence. Even members of the ruling classes can be swayed to sympathy by such non-violent actions. Police and soldiers wooed with sound political arguments and non-violent demonstrations are more likely to come over to the side of the activists than ones afraid of being shot and killed by protesters. " If I were running PETA, I would a) study the characteristics of successful and failed non-violence movements to learn from each of them; b) change the name of the organization for a clean start; c) adopt a strategy based upon non-violence and d) change the world. The following is from http://www.secession.net/nv-decentralism.html " Superiority of Non-Violent Action Gandhi, Martin Luther King, numerous activists and non-violent scholars like Gene Sharp (author of " The Politics of Non-Violent Action " and " National Security through Civilian-based Defense " ) and Barbara Bondurant ( " The Conquest of Violence " ) have argued and illustrated the superiority of non-violent to violent action. The purpose of non-violent action is to withdraw consent from government or other authorities, rather than wrest power from them. Therefore it fosters dialogue and education and allows maximum participation by everyone in society. Non-violence heightens the moral superiority of the actionists in the eyes of the general public--especially if the authorities respond to their sincere and open protest with violence. Even members of the ruling classes can be swayed to sympathy by such non-violent actions. Police and soldiers wooed with sound political arguments and non-violent demonstrations are more likely to come over to the side of the activists than ones afraid of being shot and killed by protesters. Political violence harms groups and movements. It destroys public sympathy, reinforces public prejudices against activists, invites police infiltration and harassment, and gives the state an excuse to arrest, imprison and even kill innocent activists and bystanders. Even advocacy of violence can have a detrimental effect on organizing since it divides and demoralizes activists and provides the government and media an excuse to attack the advocates. Violent action usually is practiced predominantly by angry young men, often with military training, who often become as ruthless towards other dissidents as they do towards the oppressor. These days the most vocal advocates of violence are often government provocateurs. When violent revolutionaries take power, their regimes usually are as ruthless as their revolutions. Non-violent non-cooperation by large numbers of people is more disruptive to the state than violence by smaller numbers; violence only permits the state to enhance its power. Overall, non-violent action results in the least loss of life and property, the least destruction of the social fabric and the greatest assurance that post-resistance society will be free and peaceful. In the last twenty years relatively non-violent mass movement-- " people power " -- overthrew the Shah in Iran, Marcos in the Philippines, apartheid in South Africa, Suharto in Indonesia, and brought about freedom for Eastern Europe and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Most of these activists were at least aware of the success of the efforts of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Some leaders of these movements studied or were trained in non-violence . Today, organizations like Non-violence International, International War Resisters League and Peacekeepers International are continuing to spread these ideas and strategies worldwide. " Susan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.