In Defense of PETA--Yes, You Read That Right--and the Fly Response

*6/18: See the end of this post for an update*

I am all for criticizing PETA (or any other animal rights or welfare organization) when, and as often as, the group deserves to be criticized. That's probably become clear over the last nine months. I have no allegiances. But when people manufacture reasons to complain about a group or fail to scratch beyond the surface when they make their belittling complaints, in order to figure out what it is they're actually criticizing, I get annoyed.

Everyone with a computer--from mainstream bloggers to eco bloggers to my fellow animal rights bloggers (the latter two of which I expect better from) to anti-AR Twitterers--is commenting condescendingly or with what I imagine is a lot of eye-rolling about a very short remark that someone at PETA made in reference to President Obama swatting a fly during a televised interview. The angle everyone is playing up is that PETA went charging after Obama because of the fly-swatting: PETA doesn't know how to pick its battles! PETA did something crazy again! Except none of that is true.

Could we please, please take notice of the fact that PETA did not come out swinging but rather was asked for its opinion? As I'm sure has happened in some other instances that have led to bad press for PETA, a gossipy tabloid site and other media outlets went to PETA (with a bit of snickering and condescension themselves, I imagine) to get a response, not the other way around. And so naturally, someone at PETA responded when asked--not with extremeness and not with fury, but calmly and, I thought, maturely:

He isn’t the Buddha, he’s a human being and human beings have a long way to go before they think before they act.

Am I really the only one who thinks they're simply (and politely) saying, "No big deal; he's not perfect"? I repeat: PETA was asked for a comment, in order to create a news bite because those poking PETA knew the group would have to respond once asked and knew that the manufactured story would get attention because PETA is an easy target. Seriously, even the Guardian had a snarky article up about the "incident" before PETA finally complied, briefly, with requests for a response (and the Guardian was mocking PETA and Ingrid Newkirk for not having responded yet--in cases such as this, PETA and Newkirk are obviously damned if they do, damned if they don't).

So maybe instead of all of us arrogantly telling PETA to pick its battles with politicians, we should consider picking our battles with PETA. Both PETA and other mainstream animal organizations say and do things a lot more harmful, to animals and to the movement, than responding moderately to requests for comment.

---
Here, for the record, is the "official" PETA response that came after media outlets started asking for (and publishing) it: Obama and the Fly.

Image: from the asinine TMZ.com article that led to much of the online drama about this.

---
Update: Since those initial responses to TMZ and other outlets, PETA's Bruce Friedrich has indeed said more about the matter--that although he and PETA appreciate Obama's voting record on animal issues, they do wish Obama hadn't killed the fly, and they will be sending him a catch-and-release contraption. And even news outlets the likes of CNN, MSNBC, and the AP are all over it. And my reaction remains, "So freakin' what?" They were already being slammed in the news and blogosphere for saying something completely benign in response to being asked, so why not take the opportunity to also point out--still politely, I might add--that both the president and the rest of us do have a choice in these situations?

I don't have a problem with asking people to take bugs outside (obviously); no one is asking Obama or anyone else to build a three-story mansion for insects--they're simply saying, "Hey, please try to remember that killing these tiny animals isn't necessary, and why kill any being if you don't have to?" PETA isn't going over the top here--they're not shouting and protesting and calling Obama a murderer; they're simply saying, after being asked, "We do wish he hadn't done it, but he's not perfect. But now that the media is all over it and us anyway, we'll go ahead and send him a humane bug trap." Again, I find it extraordinary that bloggers and news outlets are chiding PETA for not picking their battles more wisely when they themselves are making such an unwarranted fuss about PETA's barely-there reaction. As I said at the start of this post, I encourage people to challenge PETA, HSUS, and any other group when it's warranted--and it often is--but this is not one of those cases, and the outcry is ridiculous.