Some things are best kept off the air unless it helps the cause. In this case, the only cause helped is Jamie Oliver's publicity and that of his cooking show. Nevermind the needless loss of animal life, as Oliver had obviously decided, for as long as he can employ a shock factor to boost his show's publicity. Whether you know or not that male chicks are eliminated in the egg-producing business is beside the point. The point is that Oliver did not have to gather male chicks, show his audience how nice and cudly they were, asked his audience to pick them off the table and send them to him, then suffocated them to death on television, just to illustrate a point. The show's in-studio audience, as well as the general viewing public, can learn about this sad fact of the egg-producing business by simply telling them. You can see from the facial expressions of the audience that they did not expect to witness an execution. You can see from their faces that they were hoping it wasn't so, and they did not enjoy this spectacle. This guy, Oliver, is lucky that no one yet has sued him for emotional stress. One should not spring this kind of thing on an unsuspecting audience, or on anyone for that matter. I can see that Jamie Oliver wanted to say, essentially, that " Hey, this shit happens. Here it is and just deal with it. It's for your own benefit."
Well, so are gynecological exams but why put it on television!?
Tell me, honestly, Mr. Oliver, it wasn't to expose the horror of animal cruelty was it? It wasn't for us to know where our food comes from, hmmm? It's all about boosting your ratings, getting more publicity. It was about shocking people into talking about your show. Well, we're talking now. I can see you sitting with your producers and saying, " Wow, that's a great idea. Let's do it! " You see, I realized that there was a lot of forethought behind this particular stunt. You had to acquire the chicks, look for and invite the technicians, have the death apparatus delivered and set up, and you even procured a snake to gobble up the chicks. Man, that takes a lot of planning and coordination. More than enough time to reflect on the absurdity of your idea. But, you missed the point because your brain had grown numb from expecting the chorus of ooohs and aaahs from your captive audience ( you did not tell them about the killings before the show ) when you present the cute chicks, and then seeing the shock in their faces when you take their lives. This was not about our source of food. It was about show business. You were crass, insensitive, and cruel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaT7Um1GDzk
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-368300/Should-Jamie-slit-lambs-throat-TV.html
Well, so are gynecological exams but why put it on television!?
Tell me, honestly, Mr. Oliver, it wasn't to expose the horror of animal cruelty was it? It wasn't for us to know where our food comes from, hmmm? It's all about boosting your ratings, getting more publicity. It was about shocking people into talking about your show. Well, we're talking now. I can see you sitting with your producers and saying, " Wow, that's a great idea. Let's do it! " You see, I realized that there was a lot of forethought behind this particular stunt. You had to acquire the chicks, look for and invite the technicians, have the death apparatus delivered and set up, and you even procured a snake to gobble up the chicks. Man, that takes a lot of planning and coordination. More than enough time to reflect on the absurdity of your idea. But, you missed the point because your brain had grown numb from expecting the chorus of ooohs and aaahs from your captive audience ( you did not tell them about the killings before the show ) when you present the cute chicks, and then seeing the shock in their faces when you take their lives. This was not about our source of food. It was about show business. You were crass, insensitive, and cruel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaT7Um1GDzk
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-368300/Should-Jamie-slit-lambs-throat-TV.html
Comments