Oprah's Show on Farming: Intro, Positives, and Language Used

In the days preceding Oprah's show on the treatment of farm animals, the blurbs I read and heard on the show's Web site and elsewhere gave me momentary flecks of hope that the program would address the realities of all farming, factory or not. Oprah asked, "Have you ever wondered what 'cage-free' or 'range-free' really means? Lisa Ling gets a rare look inside some of America's farms. Where does our food come from?"

When I saw this, my first reaction, given my own perspective and knowledge, was surprise and curiosity: was the show going to disprove the idea that "cage-free" and "free-range" really mean anything—reveal to viewers the truth that most such operations differ little from factory farms, in terms of how the animals suffer? Perhaps the show was going to reveal that even those very few that do refrain from some of the worst practices still debeak (once again, see the glossary), still require that male chicks be killed in cruel fashion when only a few days old, still send animals via cruel transport methods to hellish slaughter, and still are not "humane" in any meaningful sense of the word.

But as well all know now, none of that came up. What was shown and said instead was deceptive. Do I think Oprah herself knowingly told half-truths and implied untruths? No, I don't. But Wayne Pacelle and the featured "humane" farmers did, even if Pacelle's intentions were good. Indeed, the original title of my first post on this show, my "reaction preview," was "Oprah Means Well, and HSUS Sells Out the Animals." I was a bit angry. And now let me explain why:

First I'll say that I don't think the program was all bad. I'm glad that Oprah and Lisa Ling showed—and encouraged—genuine concern for the well-being of animals and revealed some (not nearly all, but some) factory-farming practices.  I'm glad that Pacelle said some things (quite sincerely) that needed to be said—for example, "they have the same spark of life that we have; they have the same will to live; they want to avoid suffering just as much as we do." And he did an admirable job of countering some of his factory-farm-supporting opposition's preposterous arguments, including the implication that birds jam-packed into cages for their whole miserable lives, suffering from all sorts of physical and psychological maladies, are somehow better off than chickens who are allowed to live outside during the day—because those latter chickens face the unlikely danger of being killed by a coyote. Pacelle's analogy was spot-on: he pointed out that if you're stuffed into an elevator with eight other people for your whole life, day after day, year after year, you may never be hit by a car or threatened by a wild animal, but that's your life—living in that elevator. And wouldn't we all rather live out in the world, with a decent quality of life, and take the risks that come with that?

But then Pacelle omitted some important facts and made other remarks that, coming from the mouth of a well-known, well-educated animal advocate, made my jaw drop, such as this doozy: referring to the animals as those who (and I do give him credit for consistently using "who" instead of "that" or "which") "make the ultimate sacrifice for us." The animals humans eat don't sacrifice anything. "Sacrifice" implies willingly giving up something. They don't sacrifice their lives—they fight for them in many cases, and we take their lives, brutally. We kill them. And not because we have to, but because we want to. Is this a matter of semantics? Sure. But the words we use matter. Even when we don't realize it, the words that we and others choose help shape our perspectives and the images in our minds. And we all need to remember that no animal we kill "sacrifices" his or her life. We rob the animal of that life. This was language and an image that Pacelle didn't need to use to make his point, and I don't understand why he did.

Most others, of course—Oprah included—referred to individual animals as "it" throughout the show, perpetuating this idea that humans have of animals as things, objects, commodities, not living beings with individual personalities and experiences. (And as Mary Martin of Animal Person pointed out as well, Oprah twice referred to animals as "the least of beings.") Who did use "she"? A couple of the free-range farmers, not surprisingly. But so did the industrial pig farmer (the older man showed in the video with Lisa Ling, giving the tour of his operation, not the son who was in the studio). And I found this surprising. Indeed, although the farmer kept using "she," Ling continued responding with "it." This, along with some of his other remarks and behaviors, reminded me of something that I (and, I think, others in animal advocacy as well) too often forget—it is not true in all cases that a person doing something wrong realizes he is doing something wrong but just doesn't care; sometimes, a person really does just do and think what he's always done and thought because that's how it's always been, and he just needs his eyes opened. But that's a topic for another post altogether.

And all of this, although it bothered me and merits discussion, is not the heart of the problem with what was said and not said on Oprah's show last week. The bigger problem was the false dichotomy set up, the unpleasant details ignored, and what was, ultimately, the deception of viewers—and betrayal of the animals. The second part of this post, dealing with these more important matters, will come later today or tomorrow morning. Stay tuned.