chicken screenshot
by lindastcyr
Categories: Causes, Print
Tags: .
Photo: Screenshot from New York Times website

On Wednesday, the New York Times ran a photo of a raw chicken in the food section with a story on the appeal of chicken skin– the crispy, savory kind. The chicken was posed for the photo in what could be seen as a seductive pose with crossed drumsticks and a wing resting gently on its thigh. The raw chicken bared its breast for the photo which read, “Chicken’s attraction is truly skin deep.” PETA has been very vocal about criticizing the editor of The New York Times for running the photo of the sexy chicken.

PETA’s founder and president, Ingrid Newkirk, told The Atlantic Wire, “When I saw it I just couldn’t believe that an editor of ‘The New York Times’ would find it acceptable. It’s downright offensive, not just to people who care about animals but almost to everyone. It’s plucked, beheaded, young chicken in a young pose.” Newkirk then called the photo necrophilia adding, “It’s not amusing. It’s just ghastly and sickly. It’s not fitting for The New York Times.”

Necrophilia is the sexual attraction to corpses, for those who might be unfamiliar with the term.

What is rather surprising is how offensive the animal-rights group finds the picture. After all, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, have used sexual innuendo for years in their campaigns. The organizations most recent campaign shows Angela Simmons representing a biblical Eve in all her naked glory wearing only her hair and ivy with the slogan,”Eating Meat is a Sin: Go Vegetarian.”

PETA’s ads and campaigns have often come under criticism for being vulgar (shark with a swimmer’s leg coming out its mouth), sexually explicit (PETA’s banned superbowl commercial), and provocative. It is ironic that the group which has no trouble using the sex appeal of animals (ie. humans) has problems when the New York Times uses sex appeal with animals (ie. chickens).

Perhaps it is as Piper Weiss of Yahoo! Shine points out, “Maybe she’s mad that the Times stole a signature PETA move. For years, their print and commercial campaigns have relied on sex, particularly naked women, to attract media attention.”

PETA is still planning to use sex to get out their animal rights message. The group plans to launch a porn site in the near future.

One could argue that PETA’s use of live animals in ad campaigns with naked men and women might be seen as beastiality, but that claim would be outrageous just like Newkirks comparing the New York Times photo of the chicken to necrophilia is.

About lindastcyr

Linda St.Cyr is a writer, blogger, activist, and short story author. When she isn’t writing or raising her kids with her life partner, she is busy being vocal about feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, and bringing attention to human rights violations all over the world.

View all posts by lindastcyr →
  • SquidNunc

    This would be the same PETA that supports the continued murder of sharks worldwide. Sharks are being killed worldwide, and PETA thinks it’s appropriate to run jaws-style “sharks are ruthless murderers” type ads –

    • Adam Miller

      You should probably read the article that you’ve linked prior to making statements like this. PETA’s billboard is in response to spear hunting. It’s critiquing hunting and killing of aquatic life. The shark advertisement is doing the exact opposite of what you’re claiming.

      • D Catron

        PETA consists of the biggest bucnh of losers ever assembled in one group.

  • Ingrid Newkirk

    THank you for running the controversy. May I say, “There are differences that are fathoms deep between posing a plucked, decapitated young slaughtered bird, with her legs cut off, and a strong woman or man stripping voluntarily to use their body as a political statment. The plucked crotch of the bird whose neck has been cut with a blade and head removed posed, manipulated into a ‘come hither’ pose full of sexual innuendo, is not right on any level. Having sex with animals is illegal for a good reason. The little girl Ramsey case brought out how wrong it is to sexualize little girls, and this brings up another atrocious way to sexualize unwitting victims.”

    • herwin

      this photo is so tasteless and disgusting , AND humanises a chicken, that even ordinary (meateating) people will be offended by it. So unwillingly the New York Times has done vegetarianism a favor.
      And, anyone with at least a few braincells can see its absurd to compare using a dead abused animal in an offesive sexual pose just for a good laugh, with people who donate their time and energy and willingly do something out of free will, for a good cause.
      Keep up the good work and thanks from the bottom of my heart for your work. :-)

      • herwin

        OMG. i just saw the new Peta add with the shark munching on a human legg. You really think that ANYONE will look and think..”hmm, makes sense, i go vegan” ? No way. Because it is only shocking in stupidity, not shocking (or better “confrontational”) as the old Peta campaigns like “Your Food Has A Face.”
        Unlike classic Peta adds which were confronting but serious in nature AND respectful, ,yes, even the holocaust campaign,and which trule made people think about their food, this latest shark campaign is just a one day joke. Looks like an add made by not too bright highschool goons, and belongs in a MAD magazine.
        Hmm, shark attack victims include surfers and other ocean lovers who are not spearfishing. So the add is even incorrect about Payback Time. And using an image of a shark as an agressive mankiller….? Are you aware you are using the negative and untrue image of sharks , in times that shark protectors are working hard to bit by bit change this image more positively ?
        And now while i am at it, whats all the stuff with working with well known fur hags for Peta campaigns ?? Peta uses the fur hags, or are the fur hags using Peta to brush up their image ?
        Anyway, as a vegan i feel embarresed by this goofy hit and run campaign with little substance. Its just a photoshopped photo send to some media outlets. Just as goofy, counterproductive and embarrasing as the campaign with vegs and sex. Duh.
        And i dont get it, one day we get fuzzy pro fish campaigns like “fish are seakittens” to brush up the image of fish,and the next day we get agressive campaigns with sharks, portraying them as ruthless killers. Really, i dont get it.
        Media attention for the sake of…media attention, perhaps ? Because like this, its certainly not confronting or educating the general public with a serious message.

    • Kevin

      Did you just compare the running of a photo of a piece of food to the murder of a young child?

      You’re a sick bird, Ingrid.

  • K

    The humans that PETA uses are willing participants, using their bodies to make a statement. I’m pretty sure the chicken didn’t want to be slaughtered or posed that way. It’s just gross.

  • Lucy P

    This photo is so disgusting, and Ingrid is right to speak out against it. No one would find it amusing if the New York Times ran a photo of a dead dog or cat posed this way–yet chickens feel pain and fear just as the animals we dote on do, and the ways they are abused and killed for food would be illegal if dogs or cats were the victims. All animals deserve respect and our compassion, and we can give them these by simply not eating them.

  • Nina Konner

    I agree with Ingrid Newkirk. The dead chicken ad is just as disturbing and heartbreaking to me and my family as an ad showing a decapitated, nude, skinned woman posed in a “sexy position” in an advertisement. The mutilated corpses of individuals whose lives were forcibly taken are not funny or “cute”–they are horrifying reminders of how callous and barbaric some people can be. All animals deserve respect, not just the ones who look like us or those we think are cute.

  • KH

    Wouldn’t people be horrified if a dead, decapitated woman was displayed naked, in a sexual pose, on a NY Times article? People would be outraged and horrified! Why is it OK if a chicken is displayed that way? Living, breathing, willing women who CHOOSE to use their bodies to make a statement is entirely different from a dead, butchered, unwilling animal who suffered a life of misery and suffering. You simply cannot equate the two.

    • Kevin

      Well, the two are very similar in one way. I like to eat chicken…

      • Dr.Cucumber

        I like to eat women..and still I wouldn´t want to see them beheaded with chopped off feet,shaved and skinned in a ‘sexy pose’.

        I find it a bit disturbing that Kevin obviously seems to be into necrophilia with forcefully murderded women,both human and non human animals…

  • JRH

    I completely agree with Ingrid’s comment. This display is really disgusting, sadistic, insensitive and ignorant.

  • jtai

    C’mon NY Times…where’s the class? This is just tasteless.

  • AshPash

    The stars in PETA’s ads clearly chose to, I doubt that chicken was a will participant.

  • Hil

    I don’t quite understand what is so attractive about a skinned chicken. The women used in PETA ad’s are attractive, and they are marketing that being vegan and vegetarian is sexy, which with that lifestyle it can make you sexy. Why would someone want to have sex with a chicken? I understand that it doesn’t have much fat, but still. The women that are in the PETA ad’s model voluntary, unlike this chicken. If you put a woman naked on an ad without her permission, legal actions would be taken, but putting a naked chicken on an ad that can’t do anything about it and is unwilling is something different? I don’t think so.

  • A

    Way to go PETA and Ingrid Newkirk for speaking up about this disgusting photo. Sexualizing the annual slaughter of millions of animals nationwide is despicable, disgusting and tasteless. Shame on the New York Times for publishing such offensive garbage.
    Thanks to PETA and Ingrid for keeping such a watchful eye on the media and staying so truly dedicated to saving the animals!

  • Carrie Poppy

    Really? The author of this piece can’t see a difference between a beautiful woman using her body and mind to bring attention to animal issues, and someone using the decapitated corpse of an abused animal to get people to eat more meat? If you don’t see the distinction, I’m not sure we’re living in the same world.

  • Scott Brewer

    No way can you compare this ad of a sexualized corpse with PETAs naked ads. There is never a dog giving a naked celeb a come hither stare in PETA ads – just some super celeb mega hottie using their body for the powers of good. It’s no different than being an athlete – using your body and mind to accomplish things.

    PETAs ads should be applauded, the creator of this ad should be questioned if they care for any animals. Pretty gross stuff.

  • Amanda

    This is just disgusting. Whether people eat meat or not, how can anyone say this is funny? It’s sad. This is a dead body, posed in a sexual manner. There is nothing funny, sexy, or appetizing about this. PETA is right. This photo is atrocious. It wouldn’t be “funny” if it were a human, or even a cat or dog. Bottom line – dead bodies posed in sexual poses are not funny, cute, sexy, or appetizing. Gross.

  • D

    You write, “It is ironic that the group which has no trouble using the sex appeal of animals (ie. humans) has problems when the New York Times uses sex appeal with animals (ie. chickens).”

    Actually, it’s not ironic at all. As previous posts point to, whether the depicted individual voluntarily appeared or not is the crux. There are pornography industry folks who have no trouble using the sex appeal of humans (willing adults) but who have problems when child-porn or crush-video scum use sex appeal with humans (unwilling children, animals).

    Think what you may of PETA or the porn industry, but please don’t go splitting hairs and overlook the crucial point. You’re above this. And I thought the Times was as well.

  • Willow

    Chicken is not sexy, not matter who you pose it. Chickens are arguably the most abused farmed animal on the planet. Female chickens have their reproductive systems altered to produce eggs (which are a chicken’s period, btw) and the egg industry has no use for male chicks-they are ground up ALIVE in order to be disposed of. This is disgusting. Shame on the NY Times- a paper I thought actually had some level of class.

  • KB

    Comparing PETA’s ads to this repulsive chicken ad is senseless. PETA’s ads feature volunteers, who have chosen to strip down to draw attention to these very important issues. That chicken, in comparison, had his throught slit, and was probably boiled alive before being positioned in a disgusting, sexual manner.

  • Samantha

    I for one am disgusted at the image of a deceased being who suffered for her entire life in filth and cruel confinement. Chickens deserve our respect and our compassion. Attempting to make a decapitated chicken look like an ad for beastiality is disgusting. Have some class, NYT!

  • Thorstein

    Get a clue, SquidNunc. PETA doesn’t support the killing of ANY animal, and the point of the ad is to raise awareness that humans are the deadliest predators on Earth. You did read the tagline, right? PETA’s disapproval of the chicken ad is right in line with its philosophy: that animals are not ours to eat, wear, test on, use for entertainment, etc. Making a chicken look sexy who spent its life being tortured for the sake of some person’s taste buds, witting or no, is the epitome of cruelty and ignorance. Check yo’self, SquidNunc:

  • Neel Parekh

    Chickens have no control over how they’re displayed in the media. It’s completely involuntary. A naked man or woman using their body to get an important point across IS voluntary and under his or her full control.

    Chickens are constantly suffering on factory farms worldwide. The last thing we need is to see an image like this on a major newspaper/website. Please watch this video to see why this image is highly inappropriate:

  • Gracie F

    I agree with the commenters who point out that humans who choose to use their bodies as a political tool to draw attention to the important issues of animal rights are volunteers and have every right to use their bodies as they choose. I would also point out that the chicken in the NYT piece did not offer herself to be crammed, cheek-to-jowl, in a dark, filthy shed, breathing dust and ammonia fumes for the entirety of her life, only to be thrown into tiny transport crates and trucked to a slaughterhouse where she was violently killed. It’s bad enough that we view sentient animals as being “ours” to abuse and kill so that we can dine on their muscle tissue; it is inexcusable that we would derive humor from the dead body of the chicken by posing the corpse in a way that mimicks sexual imagery.

  • HappyFeet61

    I enjoy a good joke and prank but that photo is wrong on so many levels. It’s offensive and insensitive and a blatant slap in the face to an animal that was slaughtered for someone’s table. I’m embarrassed for the photographer as well as the New York Times. NYT, you’re better than that.

  • Wendy

    This photo is a perfect example of how out-of-touch and detached many humans are to the feelings of animals, and the realities they face on factory farms. There is nothing funny or sexual about the remains of an innocent being who was tortured and killed.

  • Alka Chandna

    I agree with the commenters who point out that humans who choose to use their bodies as a political tool to draw attention to the important issues of animal rights are volunteers and have every right to do so. I would also point out that the chicken in the NYT piece did not offer herself to be crammed, cheek-to-jowl, in a dark, filthy shed, breathing dust and ammonia fumes for the entirety of her life, only to be thrown into a tiny transport crate and trucked to a slaughterhouse where she was violently killed. It’s bad enough that we view sentient animals as being “ours” to abuse and kill so that we can dine on their muscle tissue; it is inexcusable that we would derive humor from the dead body of the chicken by posing the corpse in a way that mimicks sexual imagery.

  • Neil Seigel

    If there is any doubt whether this chicken image is obscene and necrophilic in nature, let’s do a though experiment. Substitute a little girl who has had her head and legs cut off and then contorted to pose in a “you-want-some-of-this” position, and ask yourself if you’re disturbed at the image. If so, like any sane person would be, then both images (chicken and girl) are necrophilic. If you’re not disturbed by the girl image, then there’s something wrong with you. If you’re disturbed at the little girl image but not at the chicken image, when they’re presented in exactly the same ways, then you’re speciest (favoring humans over animals for no logical reason except that you yourself are human). The conclusion — the chicken image is offensive and the NYT should not have printed and glorified overt cruelty.

  • Kathy

    This shouldn’t be a discussion of PETA campaigns but about the abuse of chickens. Chickens are entirely excluded from the Humane Slaugter Act — they aren’t even given a humane death. They think, they feel, they have needs that are entirely ignored by an industry that sees them as nothing more than a joke ad in order to sell more. Decent people should never support that.

  • Jeremy Beckham

    The two scenarios are not ethically similar. Not in the slightest.

    The people who elect to appear in PETA’s materials do so out of their own free will to express their viewpoint that it is wrong to abuse and kill animals for our own ends. They choose this form of self-expression because it helps grab the attention of a very distracted society that all too easily turns its back on the suffering and oppression of others. And the key here is that all of them – whether it be Pam Anderson, Chad Ochocinco, or Angela Simmons – CONSENT every step of the way. Indeed they WANT people to stand up and take notice to an important pressing issue that affects the lives of animals.

    But no chicken can or would consent to being confined, mutilated, and deprived of everything natural to them only to be killed because humans enjoy the taste of their flesh or so that a photo of their corpse can appear in The New York Times. Not one.

    • Wowzers

      WILLINGLY pose naked for peta? There’s a first for everything!
      People Eating Tasty Animals: Brainwashing people into going naked for our case against their will since 1980

  • JTH

    The only valid comparison is between this provocative image of a mutilated chicken and a provocative image of a mutilated person, not a healthy, living person who is able to make choices on their own. I’m quite surprised that ecorazzi is taking this stance.

  • Kristen Stine

    The women and men in PETA ads are willing participants in the campaigns that they feel strongly about. To blame PETA for “exploiting women” does nothing to further women’s rights. The last thing I would want, as a woman, is to be told that I don’t have enough sense to make a choice about what is “appropriate” to do with my body. I doubt that the chicken in this ad felt that she was contributing to a worthy cause. Even though necrophilia might be hyperbole,only a reprobate would find dead animals sexy.

  • The Sevens

    It seems pretty simple to me, adding sexual connotations to any image of a corpse, human or animal, is disgusting.

  • KH

    Wouldn’t people be horrified if a dead, decapitated woman was displayed naked, in a sexual pose, on a NY Times article? People would be outraged! Why is it OK if a chicken is displayed that way?

  • Runs with Scissors

    Decaying birds aren’t sexy and there’s something very wrong with anyone who’d twist and contort a dead animal’s flesh and bones, photograph it, and write about their “attraction.” It’s vile and offensive.

  • ‘A’

    I can’t imagine WANTING to eat chicken after seeing it posed this way, this is wrong on so many levels! The best picture the Times could come up with is a beckoning chicken… to eat me? If you see chicken like this, aside from making a trip to your doctor for a salmonella check up, maybe it’s time to GO VEG!


    Clearly Linda ST Cyr, the author of this article has no problem of innocent animals been murdered, and then been mocked.

    I can’t believe Ecorazzi would allow this article to be posted.

    This is the last time I visit this site.

  • Colleen

    Unlike a dead chicken, the women in PETA’s ads are alive and were not forced into any position at all, “provacative” or not. If you want to read PETA’s actual take on the story, you can read it here:

    Also, PETA does not condone the murdering of sharks… they are, in fact, against killing sharks as much as they are against the murder of mice, or chickens, or cows, or ferrets, or any other animal.

  • herwin

    i don’t get it. a Peta basher working for Ecorazzi ? The above post of “K” , and Carry Poppy says it all ; all Peta models are free participants giving their time and support for a good cause, that cant be said of the abused chicken. Linda seems to have little empathy and understanding what Peta is doing.
    Please spare of us more rubbish of Linda in the future and ditch her. Maybe a poll, so the Ecorazzi visitors can vote if she should stay or go ?

  • Suzanne Carlson

    This is truly appalling. It’s not enough that a bird suffered and died a terrifying and painful death, but to be used in such a gratuitious manner is disrepectful and makes light of what chickens go through to end up on a plate and in the toilet.

  • ingrid newkirk

    Excuse me, Squidnunc, but PETA has done a helluva lot to ask for consideration for fish, including sharks! A billboard with a man’s leg in a shark’s mouth that says, “Paybacks are Hell. Go Vegan” is what got attention to PETA’s point, i.e. that while sharks – and some other fish – are indeed predators, humans are far greater ones: something close to a dozen shark-induced fatalities in 30 yrs off US coasts, with very few people killed by any other fish – but 12 billion fish, including sharks, killed in the US for human consumption every single year. We’ve done alot of shows and written a lot about this. We have been active against finning, and much more. Not sure who told you this, but the meat industry, ,the furriers and the circus people are out there, busily trying to demonize PETA with false stories.

    • herwin

      Ingrid, dont pull a Paul Watson act here, keep your pants up. The shark add ? Just read what people say about it, on other bloogs like Huf Post. Doesnt look like people are educated by this add, or that people talk about the shark issue. People only talk about PETA.
      Wouldnt it have been better to show a graphic photo of a shark that has been finned alive and is struggling on the bottom of the sea ? MOST ordinary people are unaware of sharks being finned alive, and MOST people still will be unaware of it after this latest shark campaign.
      Whatever you say, the ordinary people in the streets, who sees this MAD magazine type of add, wrightfully or wrongfully, will think Peta (and vegans) are just a bunch of nutters. The attention of the add goes to PETA, NOT to the shark issue, anyone could have predicted that.
      And, PETA shows sharks as maneaters, thats DUMB and bad for the sharks.

  • SquidNunc

    The ad doesn’t say 12 billion fish are killed every year. The ad doesn’t say 100 million sharks are brutally harvest for their fins. The ad doesn’t say humans are greater predators than sharks. The ad doesn’t even say there’s only been a dozen shark related fatalities in the last 30 years.

    The ad says sharks are scary and if you don’t go vegan they’ll eat the sh*t out of you.

    • Alka Chandna

      Hi SquidNunc,

      Although the advertisement doesn’t explicitly say that 12 billion fish are killed every year so that humans can eat their flesh, many of the articles that I’ve read about that billboard do include the figure. Unfortunately, billboards can’t be long dissertations. And they have to be pointed in their messaging; they can’t span a whole range of issues.

      As I understand the PETA billboard, it is looking at an incident in which a fish-killer was injured by a fish while he was out on a boat attempting to spear fish to death. It’s a simple concept: karma, payback — and it makes for a nice, succinct message that implicitly asks people to think about their behavior, think about their food choices, and try to empathize with those beings who are routinely injured–and killed–by humans.

      While some people will roll their eyes and say negative things about PETA, the billboard will give other people pause. It may just plant a few seeds, but that’s something in a world where so many people fail to give even passing consideration to the scientific fact that fish are sentient beings who feel pain just as much as we do and value their lives as much as we value our own.

    • herwin

      +1. the add also says vegans are hateful and vengeful, instead of compassionate and caring. what next ? hold demonstrations at meateaters funerals with God Hate Meateaters signs ??b

      how about a billbooard of a person with cut of hands and cut of feet and still alive. (photoshopped photo ;-) of course) and the text “this happens to millions of sharks, finned alive and left to die .”
      would be confrontational, shocking to some but educational to all, and give attention to the shark case, instead of now all the attention for Peta.

      or how about Animals Are Not Our To Be ABUSED, Go VEGAN !
      too corny slogan ? i dont think so.

      No, instead a moronic junior highschool add that puts the cause and image of veganism a step backward. :-(

      • Scott Brewer


        the problem with an ad like what you’ve described is that it isn’t relevant to our sensationalist media platform.

        While you and I and all of the people here care about this issue – it isn’t going to pull readers and viewers all on it’s own like what PETA did. What did they do, you ask? They took a relevant story that the media was already reporting on and they released a billboard that would easily get attention because of this – and in return we get several articles including statistics about the abuse of fish and sharks in the world.

        All the stuff you mention is great, but I think you’re losing sight of just how things work in the media and choosing to blame PETA instead of blaming the sensationalist media machine that doesn’t allow any other tactic.

      • herwin

        @ Scott.
        Peta has other and longlasting brilliant media campaigns that are to the point, clear, passionate,shocking sometiems, and are sympathetic to people who are still undecided.
        Think “I Rather Go Naked Then..”, “Ink, Not Mink”, etc.
        Campaigns that go extremely well with the media. No need for hateful campaigns.

        What Peta did this time was, after a sportfisher was attacked by a white shark, use this incident and place it on billboards. I would say that is pretty personal and pretty hatefull.

        The result is that all around ordinary people are disgusted with this latest Peta stunt.
        In terms of PR, this Peta stunt is very damaging for the vegan comunity, and didnt do any good for the sharks also, who are portrayed as killers.
        Just read what people say about it on Huffy Post.
        alienating ordinary people from animal rights, thats what i call it.

      • Scott Brewer

        I couldn’t disagree more. Hateful..? Please. People are going to be offended about any blunt force message, but that doesn’t make it hateful. The guy was sportfishing for goodness sake – and even PETA has said the ad was to get attention for the issue, and not an attack on the person. It would be different if the focus of their campaign was against this one wounded man, but his accident is just the vehicle for the greater message.

        Sure, it’s blunt – but the guy *was* spearfishing as they said. I’m not saying that makes him getting bitten okay, but it certainly drives the irony home and opens things up for a world of discussion. Everyone is so up in arms about this man being bitten but what, it’s just okay that he was spearfishing? We don’t mind that..? Nobody sane wants for anyone to be physically harmed, or maimed – but when you’re harming and maiming innocent creatures most people just turn a blind eye. I personally do not think that one man’s suffering is more important than the billions of fish and thousands of sharks.

        The fact is that everyone is waiting to be alienated and that nice, calm attempts to reason with people about going vegan don’t make the news nearly as often sexy and/or shock tactics. PETA knows this best and constantly use it as a vehicle. They aren’t worried about looking good, they are worried about getting the facts out there to the most people possible. I think that is admirable, not hateful.

    • herwin

      “his accident is just the vehicle for the greater message.”
      Maybe no big deal for you, but for most people thats called hateful. Just read blogs and comments on other sites.
      Its blunt, yeah, i agree with you.

      And what is “the greater message” ? Is the message about “spearfishing” ? About “going vegan” ? About “commercial overfishing” ?
      There is no greater message, its a one day hit and run add, a photoshopped photo send to some media outlets. No campaign behind it. And nobody will go vegan becuase of that add.
      The only message that people get is that vegans are vengeful and hateful, and that sharks are killers.
      Sorry, i think Peta’s other real campaigns are working much better,like Turn Over A Leave, Ink Not Mink, I Rather Be Naked, etc, all long running positive and powerful well thought campaigns. These other cranky highschool one -time adds without a real campaign behind it, they shoot themselves and The Greater Cause in the foot big time.

      • Scott Brewer

        You do realize that the whole point of the photoshopped ‘high school’ image is to get outlets to pick up the story and then contact PETA, right? Then PETA talks about how many fish and sharks are brutally killed a year, etc etc.

        That’s the greater message. I thought you were already aware that that was the whole point. The billboard itself is just meant to get mass media beyond what normal approaches can get.

        Like it or not, the positive things you think are ‘better’ do not get half the attention things like this do. PETA has made it a point to keep animal rights relevant and in the media at every point possible and they do just that. With the approaches you’ve deemed ‘better’ and with things like this, some working better than others.

        And btw, how on EARTH can something be construed as hateful when PETA’s media contacts say themselves that they’re glad the victim of the shark bite is fine..? Hateful would be applauding his maiming and hoping he doesn’t recover. I think you are applying your personal distaste for the ad to a much more dramatic description than it deserves.

      • herwin

        “I think you are applying your personal distaste for the ad to a much more dramatic description than it deserves.”
        no, i am not, i am just reading blogs and what ordinary people, and even other vegans say. Also mostly i see media running stories about Peta’s distastefull add, NOT about the message.
        Personally i think its a funny add. I like MAD magazine and things like “hunter shoots hunter”, “butcher falls in sauasage machine” and now “shark bites fisher” are just funny. They are only not fit to use in adds to convince other people going vegan, because it doesnt work.

        “Hateful would be applauding his maiming and hoping he doesn’t recover.”
        Hatefull is also saying to the victim “you deserved it! It’s Payback time, sucker !”

        “Like it or not, the positive things you think “are ‘better’ do not get half the attention things like this do.”
        The positive campaigns that i mention get MUCH and POSITIVE attention. There is simply no negative response to adds like INK NOT MINK.
        The “Payback Time” add gets a lot of attention, UNFORTUNETALY negaitve attention that pictures vegans as vengeful, not as compassionate, and sharks as killers, not as endangered animals.

      • Scott Brewer

        Agree to disagree. Having read the same things you’ve read I wholeheartedly disagree that a majority of people describe the ad as ‘hateful’ – so in that sense I just think you’re reading what you want to and applying it as fact.

        People have their opinion on everything and that is fine, but the bigger picture is what is more important here. On average it takes being exposed to something 21 times before that set of facts, or ideas really effects the human brain nowadays – 30-40 years ago that average was somewhere around 7 times.

        Repetition is key. When the vast majority of people are wholly uneducated in the facts, what is more important.. getting those facts to them CONSTANTLY, or never treading on anyone’s toes and looking pretty and positive at all times..? Sometimes you’ve got to be a little risque to get attention. Every rights movement has pissed someone off. A lot of someone’s in fact.

        “Hatefull is also saying to the victim “you deserved it! It’s Payback time, sucker !” ”

        a) They never say “You deserved it!” first of all.
        b) One of the first things they say in the media is that they are glad the victim is okay, this before they blast into all the facts on the issue.

        Sorry, at best the ad is blunt tongue in cheek that gets attention to the facts.

        Using internet blogs as a gauge for effectiveness is silly. If a PETA member sneezes some meat chugging fool posts 8 blogs about how they hate PETA and why everyone else should too. Like I said before, people are waiting for a reason to be alienated and when a strong personality like PETA pops up consistently in the media – a lot of people are going to complain about it. If it isn’t this ad, its naked ads – or this or that.

        The proof is in the pudding, dude – Ingrid herself said that every time they run things like that the views on their website shoot up. You think that means nothing..?

  • Marty

    Ingrid Newkirk is one of those people that just makes me tired! For her to whine and cry about the “poor” chicken is just silly. The only way that chicken would have ever had life to begin with was for food. She is probably like most liberals. She will march for the right of women to murder their unborn baby and then cry at the death of a cow of chicken!! What a moron!! You really need to get a life!

    Why don’t you PETA people eat rocks? I mean,fruits and vegatables are living creatures as well. We don’t know what kind of pain a stalk of asparagus may experience when they are put in a pot of boiling water!!

  • LittleMe

    I used to be a member of Peta but have little respect for the organisation now. Aside from the fact they happily use the likes of Twiggy (one of the faces of P&G, a company Peta strongly urge us all to boycott) to highlight the cruelty of the fur industry, a lot of their campaigns are quite ridiculous and do nothing to further the cause.

    However, there is a massive difference between using a dead animal and using live (human) models who have voluntarily participated in a campaign. And the idea that anyone (meat-eating or otherwise) would find the Times picture in any way appealing is quite disturbing.

  • Colleen Twombly Borst

    Comparing a dead chicken who had no choice but to be in a so-called “sexy” pose with women and men who choose to pose in PETA ads and stand up for causes they believe in is ludicrous. just as ludicrous as posing a dead, beheaded chicken in the first place. It was a gross judgment call by the NYT.

  • tgrs.eye

    i dont feel like having a sex with a chicken at all, no matter how you pose or pluck it. i dont even look at the picture and say yummy im going to hv me some fried chicken tonight. i think that its just a raw chicken with crossed legs under a non related headline.

    if youre talking about sexualising a chicken, then protest against cooking shows or restaurant ads like kfc and swiss chalet that make raw meat look sooooo good.

    Sounds like a bit much? maybe you should just stop reading so much into things.

  • ingrid newkirk

    If we had shown an ad of a shark without a fin, no one would have run it. Please understand that this works because then we go on endless shows and talk about THE ISSUE, it is the outrage at PETA that gets the real issue aired. We take the licks, the animals get the benefit. It’s that simple, and it works as we see from the traffic to our site and every visitor gets an education. And if you read the news stories, you always see, well I hope always, all I’ve seen anyway, that the first thing we say is that we wish the injured party well but hope he and everyone else will reconsider hurting and killing fish.

    • Bob

      I guess you feel the end justifies the means as you go about manipulating the gullible and peddling your animal worship cult. I have an education and I just want you to know I can see through your mask.

  • Elaine

    The photo is just gross and inappropriate–dead, dismembered animals are not sexy and the NYT shouldn’t be trying to pose them in provocative ways. It’s that simple, whether you like PETA or not (and I do!)

  • Wowzers

    The next person who WILLINGLY poses naked for Plonkers Endlessly Terrorizing All (instead of being brainwashed into doing so against their will) would be the first.

  • Wowzers

    People Eating Tasty Animals spin doctor Ingrid “Nazijerk” should appear naked in one of these ads, preferably alongside fellow People Eating Tasty Animals spin doctor Gary “Youroffkey” (who began giving pro-peta-approved-diet speeches on behalf of dirty rotten peta and the cowardly ALF in 2002) in a “We’d rather go naked than wear fur” ad. Has she ever heard of getting a taste of your own medicine!

  • Wowzers

    I’d like to see peta give NONHUMAN predators credit for being notorious animal abusers!

  • peta still sucks

    Correction: The humans that peta uses were brainwashed into going naked for their cause against their will (and are most definitely NOT willing participants!).