Michelle Obama's office is reportedly upset at PETA for including her in this ad. Not that Michelle isn't against fur---she's made anti-fur statements before, following the lead of the French First Lady-----but First Ladies are not suppose to endorse political organizations or special interest groups. I don't understand that point. Doesn't she explicitly endorse the Democratic Party?
Anyway, this disagreement pivots on the concept of consent. Michelle did not consent to being part of this ad. PETA, nevertheless, will run the ad. PETA has stated that if they sought Michelle's permission she would not have been able to give it considering the constraints placed upon a First Lady. I reckon that when it comes to animal welfare, high profile people who make pro-animal statements must realize that their images could be used in campaigns against animal cruelty. And if one is truly an animal lover, then don't make any bones about it for as long as it is done tastefully. In this case, Michelle looks fabulous.
Anyway, this disagreement pivots on the concept of consent. Michelle did not consent to being part of this ad. PETA, nevertheless, will run the ad. PETA has stated that if they sought Michelle's permission she would not have been able to give it considering the constraints placed upon a First Lady. I reckon that when it comes to animal welfare, high profile people who make pro-animal statements must realize that their images could be used in campaigns against animal cruelty. And if one is truly an animal lover, then don't make any bones about it for as long as it is done tastefully. In this case, Michelle looks fabulous.
Comments