Situation Definition
In 2003, PETA, otherwise known as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, launched a campaign named “Holocaust on Your Plate.” This campaign was inspired, per se, by the Holocaust which took place during World War II. During this time, 6 million Jews were murdered throughout Europe by the Nazi regime. PETA’s campaign was meant to compare this tragic event to the slaughter of animals for human use, yet it can be misread or misconstrued.
Despite the fact that a Jewish PETA member funded the “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign, there was still backlash from the Jewish community. This campaign, in particular, displays animals in slaughterhouses with scenes of Nazi concentration camps as the visual aspect. The images were released at an exhibit in San Diego, California, and then some were later released in Berlin, Germany. Overall, these images, along with the message behind them, raise some questions and controversy.
I believe this case raises several ethical concerns. I’ve done some extensive research and reading regarding the events surrounding the Holocaust, so for a company to promote a campaign that was influenced by such a tragedy is wrong. This case is unethical because it blatantly compares the murder of millions of people to the slaughtering of animals, which some may believe to not even be close in comparison. In other words, killing people without a plausible purpose is often considered to be a worse act of violence. Some may also analyze this campaign as a comparison between those who were murdered in the Holocaust to animals, which would raise an argument for another unethical concern. In other words, audiences could’ve thought that PETA was trying to say that those murdered during the Holocaust were just animals, or at least that’s what their campaign may have had people thinking.
Analysis
According to the Society of Professional Journalists, the main question in regard to this case is “Is ‘Holocaust on Your Plate’ ethical wrong or a truthful comparison?” When looking at the case from a broader standpoint, the repercussions of releasing such controversial images, tied with a controversial message, prompts viewers to feel negatively toward it. Also, the fact that Ingrid Newkirk, the CEO of PETA, decided to release the campaign without addressing the emotions and responses surrounding it is not good; her reputation, as well as the reputation of PETA could have been at risk. Those who viewed the campaign could ultimately lessen their support for PETA and its goals if they believe the organization is unethical.
Even though PETA made the argument that the logic behind their campaign is backed by the truth, it’s still possible for an audience to be misled by the message of the pictures. In other words, an audience would not be able to pick up on the “credibility” of the images in that they’re direct references to events from the Holocaust. Seeing harm done to animals and comparing it to the murder of humans may cause a stir within an audience that would make them believe that humans are lesser and perceived as “animals,” when that is not the case. In my own opinion, I feel like an audience would be disturbed by the pictures that PETA released as a part of their campaign because they not only show tragic scenes from the Holocaust, but also show the harm done to animals.
When looking at the Holocaust on Your Plate campaign from a public relations standpoint, it could be assumed that it was produced for just that — PR. PETA is the type of organization that is considered to be a non-profit social movement organization as it advocates for the protection of animals. In PR terms, when a non-profit social movement organization communicates a campaign, the question is whether or not they are “promoting the greater good instead of their own self-interest. One might wonder if they are bound to the same obligation to favor duty-based ethics over utilitarian ethics” (Freeman, 2007, p. 4). In other words, if someone were to analyze the campaign from a PR perspective, they have to consider whether or not their material is ethical on behalf of the company, or ethical on behalf of themselves as people.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this case regarding PETA’s Holocaust on Your Plate campaign is unethical. This case is in the realm of news media in that it got attention from a large-scale audience and was talked about extensively across social media and other news platforms. Yes, it wasn’t necessarily journalistic, but it involved public relations in that it was a campaign, so it was disseminating information to the pubic.
In my opinion, the message that was intended to be portrayed through this campaign could’ve been done in a better way. In other words, PETA didn’t have to use images taken right from the Holocaust to compare them to images of tortured animals to get their message across. Instead, they could’ve sent out written messages about how awful both the Holocaust and torturing animals are because that could have had the same affect as pictures.
If I were in PETA’s position and had to decide whether or not I wanted to release a campaign that showed graphic images, I would probably have to think about the consequences that stem from the controversy. When releasing anything to the public, it’s important to keep in mind how people read them and portray them and whether or not any emotions may be elicited by certain types of news.
References
Freeman, C. (2007). Who’s Harming Whom? A PR Ethical Case Study of PETA’s Holocaust on Your Plate Campaign. Conference Papers — International Communication Association, 1. Retrieved from http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=26951337&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Hamilton, Jill. “Ethics Case Studies – Society of Professional Journalists.” Society of Professional Journalists, www.spj.org/ecs14.asp.