ASPCA Rhetorical Analysis

When watching TV, sad shows and commercials aren't most people's cup of tea, yet many animal organizations use this rhetorical element for advertising. Two of the most famous organizations that use this strategy are the ASPCA and PETA.The most popular ASPCA commercial is one that is normally accompanied by sad video clips and music which, immediately makes most individual's eyes sweat. This is because no one in their right mind likes to see an animal being abused or neglected. On the other had PETA's use of the sad videos goes too far. It allows millions of people fall into the trap of thinking that the way that animals are being treated in these commercials is representative of how animals are being generally treated across the country. Mainstream media has allowed animal activist organizations to influence the opinions of individuals all over the

world. While the ASPCA used their video to portray the harsh reality of the overpopulation in shelters, other organizations are known for using similar tactics to mislead their viewers.

People for Ethical Treatment of Animals or better known as PETA is one organization that is commonly guilty of providing false information and videos. PETA’s main claim is that they are the advocates for the lives of animals as they are not able to stand up for themselves. “Our cruelty caseworkers receive a constant stream of calls from caring people all over North America who have witnessed animal abuse and want to help but don’t know how to proceed,”(Augustus Club). Which, is where PETA steps in in order to help those animals. While they do some good deeds, PETA continues to make headlines for a variety of different offenses. This includes Huffington's post “Shocking Photos: PETA’s Secret Slaughter of Kittens, Puppies” (Winograd), as well as Daily Wire’s “PETA Trivializes RAPE In Appalling New Ad” (Prestigiacomo). Overall, PETA doesn’t have enough credibility to deserve the millions of dollars in donations that they receive on a yearly

basis
PETA followers across the globe are blinded by the idea of protecting animal rights and wellbeings, but altered videos and dishonest articles allow PETA to be able to continue pocketing money again and again from its well-intentioned victims. It is a common belief that PETA has strong moral values and is a great organization to donate to in order to protect the lives of millions of animals. According to PETA’s financial records, they received $65,740,009 in donations in 2016 in order to protect a variety of different animals (peta.org/about). However, the way they portray their agenda in order to receive the donations betrays the ethical code which they claim to promulgate.
One of the most common ways PETA tries to support their claim is with the manipulation of videos even though this practice is completely unethical.“Animal activists exploit a long tradition of rhetoric against capitalism and the factory system to link animal rights with other social and political issues with exploitation and deprivation for profit.”(Jasper & Nelkin, 228) PETA believes that by linking their cause with that of successful social movements, they can receive more donations and popularity. For example, in one video published by PETA officials, they claim that artificial insemination, a process that is common to protect smaller females from being injured by the much larger and aggressive male, should be held to the same legal standard of human rape. (peta.org/features) In order to support their claim, they made a video of women talking about the experiences of farm animals as if the animals were sexually assaulted thus saying that many of our food products are the “product of rape.” These two things that are so vastly different, that comparing them doesn't make much sense at all. In other videos, they commonly manipulate the background music or cut out important information in order to better fit what they are trying to claim. This outright deception negatively affects the people who are actually trying to improve the lives of animals without falsifying information as most are placed into the same category as PETA.
While the idea of PETA seems great, unethical practices lurk behind their label; which, has dramatically damaged their credibility. It is not an uncommon occurrence for an animal rights activist with this organization to use slander or remarkably ignorant name calling when anyone questions or opposes to their argument. Authors James M. Jasper and Dorothy Nelkin of The Animal Rights Crusade state “Fundamentalists hurl venomous labels at those who abuse animals”(Jasper, Nelkin, 227). The article states that PETA and similar animal activists call scientists “sadistic” and farmers “fascists” no matter how they treat the animals in their facilities. These unnecessary remarks not only make the organization look bad on a national level, but show that PETA does not want to have an adult conversation; instead, they seem to be more interested in childish mudslinging which ultimately damages the entire organization's credibility.
PETA may have mastered the use of emotional rhetoric, but is their argument logically valid? They are consistently accused of blatant lies, violent slander and manipulating their videos and articles. PETA has given animal activists all over the world a bad name and created a strong separation between different types of animal lovers. Overall, they continue to prove they are not a credible source nor should they receive the millions of dollars per year for “protecting” animals. With some simple research, this money could be going towards organizations like the ASPCA, whose main goal still has the animals in mind.