Mike Disney’s Paper

Michael Disney

ENC 1101

Tobacco Companies: “Smooth Criminals”

 

            Ever since I was young, I have had the idea that smoking is terrible for you.  My parents have beaten it into my head.  They always tell me that smoking will kill you.  It is not good for your lungs or your body.  One quote that my dad always uses is, “If you want to be an athlete, you shouldn’t smoke.”  And honestly, I don’t see anything good coming out of smoking.  That is not what the tobacco companies want you to think though.  Tobacco companies want you to think that smoking is the cool thing to do.  Even if you’re throwing years of your precious life into the garbage, they are just worried about making some money.  They send out an image to the younger generations that smoking is the “in” thing to do.  Once the customers are addicted, the company’s job is done.

            Tobacco companies are making tons of money off their products.  They make billions of dollars a year!  Billions!  That is the one reason why they keep selling their products.  They are so greedy even when they know they are killing their customers (which sounds ironic).  One website called thetruth.com shows how tobacco companies lie and deceive their customers.  Here are some facts that this website provides:

In 1997, one tobacco executive pleaded the Fifth ninety-seven times in a disposition.

Much of the advertising is found at children’s eye level.

Nicotine increased 10% from the years 1998-2004.  Nicotine is what keeps the smokers addicted.

            Not only do the tobacco companies lie and deceive their customers, but they also try to produce advertising that makes smoking seem cool.  One company that is the perfect example of this is Kool.  They even have the word “Cool” in their name but try to be witty by spelling it differently.  I’m sorry but that is lame.  They have ads in all types of magazines that show young attractive people smoking at clubs, bars, and other popular places to hang out.  These ads show the young people enjoying a cigarette while in a social place.  This company is trying to make smoking look “Kool.”  The people that are in these advertisements are viewed by the general public as attractive people.  They pay models lots of money to model their cigarettes.  For some reason, this works.  People see these young attractive models smoking and want to be like them.  But this company is not the only one who does this.  It is done by every Tobacco company that has ever been around. 

            Another company that stresses the cool factor is Camel.  In one such advertisement Camel portrays a camel as a “smooth character.”  This “smooth character” has a cigarette sticking out the side of his mouth.  He is wearing dark sunglasses and a nice white suit which draws in on the cool factor.   The scenery is that of a beach which can also be portrayed as cool.      In the background of this scene there is a young beautiful woman leaning on a yellow sports car.  Any advertisement that has a young beautiful woman will catch the gaze of a young teenage boy (teenage boys are a large part of a tobacco companies audience). Both the woman and car are considered “cool” in today’s society.  Our society nowadays values material items like the one’s shown in this advertisement.  A message of this advertisement is that by smoking these cigarettes, you will get hot babes and cool sports cars. 
            The text in this ad says “Smooth Character” which seems to represent what the camel is.  By being smooth, the camel is then cool.  The adjective smooth also goes along with the suit and the sunglasses.  What this ad is also saying is that if you smoke, you will become smoother, or you will become a “smooth character.”  This is another way tobacco companies hit the audience of a young teenage boy.  A teenage boy typically wants to be smooth, especially around the ladies, hence the lady in the background of the advertisement.  So when a teenager pictures themselves smoking, they see themselves also being smooth.

            Another way tobacco companies sell their product is by using famous people.  Whether or not they are actually being used in an advertisement, it gets the point across.  Famous people are considered cool. Famous people smoke.  Therefore, smoking is cool.  Examples of famous people that smoke are Lil Wayne, Shia LaBoeuf, and even Barack Obama.  These people are walking advertisements for smoking.  When their fans see them smoking, it influences the fans to also smoke.  It is not a good image for the younger generation. 

            Not only is it a bad image, it is not good for their health.  Facts say that smoking kills.  The website, thetruth.com, has a long list of facts.  It says that around fifty people per hour are killed by cigarettes.  In 2006, over five million people around the world died from tobacco products!  Not only do the cigarettes kill you, they also are just plain disgusting.  This site has a list of what is found in cigarettes:

Acetic Acid is found in cigarettes. Acetic Acid is also found in floor wipes.
Acetanisole is found in cigarettes. Acetanisole is also an ingredient in some perfumes.
Toluene is found in cigarette smoke. Toluene is also found in dynamite.
Formaldehyde is found in cigarette smoke. Formaldehyde preserves the dead.
Geraniol is found in cigarettes. Geraniol is also found in pesticides.
Acetone is found in cigarette smoke. Acetone also removes nail polish.
Hydrazine is found in cigarettes. Hydrazine is also found in rocket fuel.
Toluene is found in cigarette smoke. Toluene is also found in gasoline.
Cadmium is found in cigarettes. Cadmium is also found in batteries.
Cinnemaldyhyde is found in cigarettes. Cinnemaldehyde is also found in pet repellant.
Methanol is found in cigarettes. Methanol is also found in antifreeze.
Urea is found in cigarettes. Urea is also found in Pee.

            This list is not only disgusting, but it looks hazardous.  Why do these tobacco companies lie about these products and deceive their customers.  Instead of the usual ads that you see from the tobacco companies, I have created a few anti-advertisements.  One such advertisement would be a crime scene.  The crime scene is in someone’s apartment, with the T.V. still on.  A person’s hand would be coming out the side of the picture, limp, as if they were dead.  A box of Camel cigarettes is lying on the floor next to the person who is portrayed as dead.  Next to the dead person would be a detective who is kneeling down near the dead body examining a still lit cigarette.  The detective is wearing a trench coat and wearing a Sherlock Holmes hat.  His partner would be shown through the door coughing from the smoke in the room. Behind the T.V., would be a tobacco company executive peering out at the scene.  The T.V. screen would have the words, “pleading the fifth” on it.  The executive is portrayed as if he is nervous and hiding. His pockets are overflowing with money.  The lighting of the scene would be dark to portray the evil that is occurring.  On the top of the page, words written in smoke coming out of the cigarette would say, “CAMEL: SMOOTH CRIMINALS.”  The letters would be made of smoke and written in a cursive type of font, showing the smoothness.

            I think this anti advertisement would be very effective in showing many of the values that tobacco companies and executives hide from their customers.  The crime scene would be an example of how smoking kills millions of people a year.  The T.V. represents pleading the fifth, and how the tobacco executives hide behind it.  The money, pouring out of the pockets of the tobacco executive shows how these executives only care about the money, and how greedy they are.  The words “SMOOTH CRIMINALS,” obviously plays off the words, “Smooth Character.”  They show how these tobacco companies are getting away with this awful tragedy.  I think a smooth criminal is an interesting way to represent the tobacco companies.  They are getting away with what seems like murder, and they are making money off of it.  No one can do anything to stop them so they are like “smooth criminals.”  The lighting of the scene also portrays smoking as evil and bad.

            Another anti-advertisement that I thought of is for the company Kool.  This scene would be in a hospital.  The lighting would also be dimmed in this scene.  In the hospital, there would be a bed where a young man is laying.  He would be wearing his leather jacket, blue jeans, and would have sunglasses on his lap.  His body would not be like that of the strong young man, probably like it used to be.  Instead, he would be withering, and his face would be sagging a little bit.  His skin would be pale and his hair would be graying.  His eyes would be closed and he would have tubes all over his body just so that he can stay alive.  Next to him, leaning over the bed would be his mother.  His mother would be seen weeping, holding her son’s hand.  The doctor would be standing over the mother, trying to console her.  Clearly, it is not working as you can see the pain in the mothers face.  On the bottom, would be only the word KOOL with a period after it.

            This anti-advertisement would hit people a little bit harder.  Not only would people see the effect smoking has on them, but it shows the effect on others who care for them.  The picture is obviously the young man on his death bed and his mother is crying because of it.  The word KOOL at the bottom of the page would be almost sarcastic.  The period at the end of KOOL would be put there to emphasize the sarcastic part of it.  Not only would people feel bad looking at this anti-advertisement, but hopefully it would make them realize what could happen to them. 

            Many anti-advertisements are created to make people laugh but I want my anti-advertisements to make the message clear; smoking is bad for you.  I want people to look at my anti-advertisements and feel changed.  I want them to see what I see, that smoking kills and can do no good for you. 

            My audience would be mainly for teenagers.  They are the group that can most easily be influenced and this age group is where most people begin smoking.  I think my anti-advertisements would be very successful at getting the points across, especially the second advertisement.

            People smoke because they think it’s cool.  Once they start smoking, they become addicted and cannot stop.  I hope that people do not get influenced by these false advertisements and I hope people do not become addicted to cigarettes.  It is bad for their health and it is also an expensive habit.  People need to realize the true meanings behind the advertisements of tobacco companies.  They need to see past the false messages of being cool and hip.  They instead need to realize what harm could be done from doing such a little thing.  Therefore, this is my message, smoking is not “KOOL,” smoking will not make you a “smooth character,” instead smoking will create problems for you in your life and eventually ruin it. 

Works Cited

Do you have what it takes to be a tobacco exec? Web. 16 Nov. 2009. <http://thetruth.com&gt;.

101 Smoking Facts – The Facts About Smoking. Web. 17 Nov. 2009. http://www.smoking-facts.net/.

Stephen Davis Paper #3

Oscar Wilde once said, “No object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly”.  Stephen Davis then said, “No object is so ugly that, under certain conditions, it will not look beautiful”, and thus, you have the central modus operandi of the entire cosmetic industry summed up in two quotes.  There is something disturbing about, not just advertisements for beauty products but advertisements in general.  We know that there are three main forms of rhetoric, and when referring to advertisements we can substitute the word rhetoric for the word persuasion: Ethos, logos and pathos.  Ethos is persuasion by ethics, logos is the use of reasoning to persuade, and pathos is the persuasion by use of the emotional mind.

In my mind though, these three forms of rhetoric can be personified into more familiar terms such as you sometimes see, for example, the seven deadly sins manifested into familiar objects or people (for instance, lust is a sharp blade, etc…).  Well, I am going to combine Ethos, Logos and Pathos with the popular phrase The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly.  Logos is The Good, because it is the use of reason to persuade, and reason is based on fact.  There is a well-defined set of parameters with logos (either something is fact or fiction), making honesty very easy to see.  Ethos is The Bad because it is based on general and individuals ethics and credibility.  Those features can be tampered with, manipulated and skewed easier than Logos because people’s opinions are all different and personal, truth is a matter of preference.  But Pathos is without a doubt The Ugly – because of the sheer intangibility associated with emotions, and especially fear.  It is what companies love to use the most because it plays off of the person’s desires, insecurities, and secrets, which are barely definable by definition but understood intuitively.  Basically, the more abstract a method is, the more effective it is in persuasion.  Also known as brainwashing.  When an idea is beat into your head for so long you believe it to be fact; regardless.  Television, print news, Internet, are so effective because they use and abuse emotional reactions so well.

For instance on the television news you would most likely see a barrage of bad news followed by “buy this, do that, look like this” ad campaigns, followed by more bad news.  It’s a chain of fear and consumption that drives the public to believe that everything that is displayed is true, and then their values are shaped by what they think is true and mimic their whole lives around this certain image that they believe they need to have.  Or maybe you are watching your favorite television show and you recognize the clothes of one of its main characters.  The show then proceeds to cut to commercial where that same character or model of equal talent is promoting a clothing line in such a way that impulses you to go out and buy that brand.  This is manipulation in its finest and most subtle state.   Unfortunately, the cosmetic industry picks up the baton and runs with it when it comes to Pathos advertising.  L’Oreal, Revlon; these companies are the two biggest, and therefore the biggest culprits, but I will be focusing in on just L’Oreal advertising.

We have all seen the commercials.  First, it establishes its credibility, through the clever use of endorsements mainly to super attractive models or celebrities – which by the way is a clear use of Ethos rhetoric.  In the commercial, said celebrity is holding the bottle of makeup or whatever all while making the biggest grin in humankind history, repeatedly saying again and again “try this, do that”, and a couple of before/after shots and testimonies by “real people”, it is almost like clockwork how similar they have become to one another.  It is because they work.  And they work well.  I believe it to be sad that any company need to manipulate the fears of young women (because that is a cosmetics company’s main audience.  And if you can brainwash a person at a young age, that brainwash can and most likely will follow into adulthood and even seniority if they aren’t ever being told differently) and guide their values toward a consumer based lifestyle, or the belief that having certain things or features will make you happy and wanted.  They make them clutch this idea of that float or sink philosophy; they are using these women’s own values against them, and then twisting it around their product, so that it looks like in order to be happy they need to be beautiful.  And in order to be beautiful they need to buy this product.  So when one breaks it down to its bare essentials, subliminally, the advertisements are saying this:  “If you want to be happy, spend money on our products”.

What is even more interesting than the commercials themselves, are the results of the applied product.  It is a fools belief to think that everyone runs out and buys everything in sight that are advertised with the intent that it is going to bring instant happiness, but in the subconscious that idea is recycled in the brain and has to do with part of the impulse that we have when we buy things (known as impulse buying).  So what happens when, say, a young girl goes to Macy’s and buys an expensive beauty product?  Well, let’s get one thing established; makeup does not “make-up” a person.  The whole outside world does not change because this makeup has been applied to her skin.  In fact, the only thing changing physically is the outer layer of her skin, hair or nails, etc.   Don’t be fooled, just because something has an expensive price tag does not mean it was expensive to produce.  There is evidence to the contrary on a lot of cases.  That means that when someone goes to the store and buys makeup, because the average bottle of makeup costs less than a cent to produce, and they see that tag price, and let’s say it costs a dollar; only one percent of the price is actually covering the cost of the makeup.  Where is the other 99 percent going?  Profit, yes, but more importantly it is going towards shaping your own psychological security, which is something you can do completely on your own for free, I might add – no, it is something you have to do on your own.   Studies have shown many times that the amount of makeup or type of clothes does not make one more secure, in fact, once again there is evidence to the contrary; micromanaging our appearance often leads to over embellishing our image and ends up increasing insecurity. So basically, you’re paying a cosmetics company (and so 99 percent of their profit) mostly for covering up insecurities, which in turn has a rebound effect on that persons self-image and they spend more money trying to cover it up.  And that ties back in to fear-based consumption.

I know at this point you are probably asking, “Stephen, what are you going to do about this”?  Well, sadly, there isn’t anything I can do.   But I can make fun of L’Oreal and their advertisers for being so deceitful and detrimental to society.  I can make an anti-ad, which reverses any persuasion and spin it into negative attention.  L’Oreal cover models usually feature some gorgeous 20 something year old woman with bright shining teeth and in a glamorous pose.  Over her head is usually the brand name L’Oreal and directly under that is the word “Professionell”.  At the bottom of the screen is usually a picture in the foreground of the product that is being sold.

My anti-ad would go something like this:  As the original ad does I would have a close up of a woman’s face, not in a gleeful position, but in a forlorn, helpless pose.  She is completely blacked out by the sheer volume of makeup that she obsessively put on.  Tears are streaming down her face, and the trail leaves her real skin, glowing and white underneath.   The tears themselves have become back and heavy due to collecting the mass of makeup that is on her face.  Underneath her face, as the original advertisement suggests, there is a bottle of makeup.  But instead, in my rendition the makeup bottle is empty the words “WHOREAL” tattooed across the front.  On the top of the ad would be the words UN’REAL.  And underneath that, the word “Expectations” where “professionell” would normally go.   Really, that is all that is needed to express my disgust and disapproval of this companies advertising method.

Brittany Atchersons paper- The effects of Fashion Advertising

Devon Travis-Original Advertisement

Devon Travis Anti-Ad

Michael Degnan’s paper!

Caroline Strong’s Paper

Caroline Strong

November 2, 2009

ENC 1101-10

It’s Raining Cats and Dogs

PETA is an animal protectionist group known as the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals. The group is a non-profit charitable organization that has been around since 1980. Started in Virginia, it is not only based in the United States but also in Germany, the Netherlands, India, and the Asia-Pacific Region. PETA rules under the standard that humans should not eat, experiment on, wear, or use for entertainment for animals. Their missions include preventing animal abuse in ways such as shutting down factories, labs, and corporations that have caused bodily harm or death to animals (PETA Media Center Fact Sheets).

The advertisement being focused on here displays a woman dressed in a cat costume behind jail bars with the slogan, “Cats are too cool to be in zoos.” The advertisement takes advantage of color, value, texture, shape, and lines. It also incorporates sex appeal to catch the eye of the intended audience. The intended audience for most PETA activities includes a broad range of people, but it specifically made up of young adults who are willing to try to make a difference for what they believe in. The model in the picture is revealed to be a celebrity by the name of Isha Koppikar. Like most celebrities, she is thin and attractive. Because of this, the cat costume she has on accentuates her body and catches people’s eyes with her sex appeal. PETA, and most other companies who choose to advertise like this, catch the eye with sex appeal and then force the audience to perceive the message being sent by the advertiser.

The main colors in this ad are black, white, and gray. The background is white while the cat suit the model is wearing is black and the cage she is in has gray metal bars. The text displayed is all in black except for one word that appears in red. In this case, the whole picture consists of black, white, and gray so as to make the word in red appear very significant. The colors also send a message that the meaning of their organization is simple. It is in put in “black and white” that cats should not be put in zoos. Under the slogan, in a smaller text, it says, “Let animals live free.” The message is very easily interpreted, so much so that they even deploy it to be under the slogan. Early on, PETA makes it known that their goal is to let animals live freely, how they believe they should live.

Color in an advertisement typically emphasizes or symbolizes an underlying meaning that is being brought upon by the advertiser. Here, the only color in the ad is red and the only place this color appears is at the bottom of the ad where it says the organization’s name, PETA. It can be inferred that the reason the group chose red in particular is because it is the color of blood. They are completely against the killing of animals, and with all types of killing; blood is involved in some form or another.  PETA also chooses to make the name of their organization the only color in the picture so that it stands out. The red here jars the flow of black and white and makes it known that it is for animal protection.

Texture is another key attribute of an advertisement. It helps the reader draw emotion so that the intended message gets recognized faster and more effectively. A huge part of this ad is the black and white color along with the gray, metal bars of the cage. Due to this, the texture sensed by the interpreter will most likely be a feeling of coldness and hardness. With these come feelings of loneliness and sadness. These feelings are successful because this is how PETA wants its audience to feel after they think about the death and torture of animals.

As for shape, half of the ad is three-dimensional while the other half of the ad is two-dimensional. The two-dimensional part of the image is the black and white background with the text. The blackness at the top of the background forms white lines that appear similar to lightning bolts coming down onto the cage. In storms, lightning is typically associated with fear, so here PETA is imprinting a feeling of fear in their audience’s brains that this is what will happen to cats if not for their help. It is intentionally two-dimensional to highlight the importance of the three-dimensional section. The three-dimensional part of the advertisement is the part where the model, Isha, is in the cage. She looks very angry about being there and looks to have thoughts of escaping. The fact that only this portion of the picture is three-dimensional complements the fact that PETA is using sex appeal to catch the eye of the interpreter.

The last component of the ad is the text displayed and how it is actually arranged. When it comes to text arrangement, font size, type, and color are significant factors when determining whether the intended message will come across easily or if it will be misinterpreted for something else. The biggest sized text in the picture is put near the middle of the ad. This shows the reader that this text is the most important for the audience to see. It is the main slogan and is meant to be interpreted as being clever and well thought out. The message of the ad lies in the text under the slogan that says, “Let animals live free.” A lot of the times, the message is hidden in the image itself, but in this ad, it is shown to you. This freedom for animals is what PETA is trying to get across. The reason the message would be out in the open is to create a sense of urgency to the reader that they need to help with the organization in any way they can at that moment. At the very bottom of the picture is the model’s name, Isha Koppikar, and it says that she is for PETA. This is where the word PETA is in the color red. Under the line where it announces that Isha is for PETA, the full name of the organization is written out. All of this information is given to the reader to provide them with a full understanding of who they are and what they do.

Overall, this advertisement definitely sends a message to the intended audience along with everyone else. It is effective in showing what they believe in by integrating color, value, texture, shape, and lines. It catches the eye of the reader right off the bat and forces them to think about what is in front of them. However, the advertisements that PETA puts out for the public are very radical and intense. They use a great amount of sex appeal in order to symbolize equality among people and animals. The entire reason a woman was put in a cat suit instead of just having a cat itself was to show that humans and animals should be treated alike. They only use famous models and celebrities to back up the public with them and their views and, while this may be effective advertising, it is certainly not effective in selling their ideas. Due to this reason, and anti-advertisement was created to mock the original PETA ad discussed above. In this ad, a comical feel is presented that mocks the entire organization itself.

The anti-advertisement created uses the old saying that cats have nine lives to mock what PETA stands for.  The anti-advertisement will have the same idea as the first did, but instead of the cat having feelings of loneliness or sadness, it will have feelings of indifference toward being in a cage. More importantly, it will make the general public indifferent. Animals were put on the earth simply to be inferior to humans and, because of this, they should be able to be used by humans whether for clothing, food, or experimentation.

Just as the original advertisement, the area of focus in the anti-advertisement is the cat portrayed in the cage, but the main words here say, “Cats have nine lives.” This ad has the opposite affect when it comes to sexual appeal. Since the argument is that humans and animals are not equal, a cat is put in the cage instead of a woman in a cat suit. This is symbolic of how animals are inferior to humans. Generally, this ad should reach out to all audiences that understand what PETA stands for, even if they are against it. Like most cats, this cat is particularly unsexy. Though it might not catch the eyes with sex appeal, it does with color contrast and text arrangement so that the intended message is understood.

The spoof advertisement has the same arrangement of black and white throughout as the original ad. The only difference is that the cat is colorful instead of the black cat suit worn by the woman. Regardless, the black, white, and gray still has the same effect on the image, which is to emphasize the bright colors. The slogan is in black and white and so is the background. Since the background is like this, it appears to make the rest of the image of the cat in the cage stand out and become more three-dimensional.

The anti-advertisement consists of more color than that of the original. This was done on purpose to emphasize the only things in color, which are the cat and the name of the organization. The name of the organization, PETA, and its spoof acronym is in red. The spoof acronym is, “People Eating Tasty Animals” which mocks the entire organization because their platform is to prevent this. Because it is one of two sections with color, it draws attention in the picture. The other area of color in the ad is in the cat, which is an ugly golden brown color with orange stripes. The point was to draw attention to how “unsexy” the cat is so as to mock the idea of using sex appeal to sell the product. The cat is massively overweight and has a look of indifference on his face. The look of indifference sends the message that cats could live in a cage or out in the wild because they are animals and therefore, inferior to humans.

The texture of the anti-advertisement conveys a sense of emotion just like the original ad did, but in a different way. The original advertisement used texture to draw attention to the jail bars of the cage so that the reader could further interpret the feelings of sadness, anger, and loneliness. The spoof advertisement uses the same cage for the reader to further interpret the cat’s emotions. The difference here is that the look on the cat’s face conveys a nonchalant, indifferent attitude. It appears that the cat could care less if it was in the cage. A human in a cage would be considerably frowned upon by most modern societies but the cat in the cage should not matter because it is an animal.

The shape of the spoof ad follows the same general pattern where the two-dimensional background emphasizes the three-dimensional cage. However, the background was slightly tweaked. Instead of the original lightning bolt theme to create fear among the viewers, curvy blobs of black were put in place of this. These new and improved structures wave over and below the cat like blobs of nothingness. The black abyss created in place of the lightning bolts simply does nothing but takes away the sense of fear instated by the original advertisement. The two-dimensional section highlights the three-dimensional area so as to emphasize the “unsexy” cat behind the jail bars living unequal to humans.

Text arrangement plays a key part in the anti-advertisement as well. The slogan is placed out to the right of the cage and says, “Cats have nine lives…” and then under that near the bottom of the cage says, “So what.” The text at the top of the cage serves as a mini cliffhanger where the reader expects some sort of animal protectionist slogan displayed under the first words. Instead, the feeling of indifference is added again with the words, “so what.” Everything in the advertisement comes together with this arrangement of text. Once this is read, the reader reads the spoof acronym of People Eating Tasty Animals. It is fully understood with these components that this advertisement is mocking the PETA organization.

In the end, both advertisements sent a message, but they were opposite. They were both effective in deploying text arrangement, color, and shape to relate to various things that would influence the message sent to the reader. In the first advertisement, a message to protect animals by all necessary means was portrayed. The second advertisement was an anti-advertisement of the original ad and sent the message that cats are just animals, which are inferior to humans and because of this, humans should be able to use them in whatever ways they wish to. The anti-advertisement also played a big role in mocking the use of sex appeal in an ad. The point of the cat in a cage instead of using a model wearing a cat suit again was to make it appear “unsexy”. People do not find cats to be sexy, they find models to be sexy. PETA also chose to use a woman in their ad to subconsciously say that humans and cats are equal in nature. A real cat was used in the spoof ad to convey that they are not. While the original message effectively portrayed what they wanted to, the anti-advertisement did its job to mock the first image and send its own message.

Works Cited

“PETA Media Center Factsheets.” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): The animal rights organization. Web. 18 Nov. 2009. <http://www.peta.org/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=107&gt;.

Isha Ad