On Oprah and Proposition 2
I didn't want to watch Oprah's show on Proposition 2 because it was obvious what direction it was going to go in: happy meat. But I felt obligated, as I do have a certain amount of suburban
housewives in my life who, believe it or not, texted me about the show
and assumed I'd tune in.
To my surprise, though I thought it would be a slam dunk for happy meat, it wasn't at all. Those who've been dealing with this for months (unlike me) will probably not find any of this surprising, but nevertheless . . .
Let's deconstruct:
- Oprah wanted to present "both sides" so viewers could "make a conscious, informed decision" about what to purchase and vote according to their values.
- There's another side to the discussion, though. Your choice as a consumer isn't confined (!) to one animal product or another. If you don't want animals to suffer for your food, don't have them killed for you. Done. The only mention of not eating animals was by The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof, who looked pained as he said he wasn't going to stop eating them. That was after he gave us every reason to stop. I think I can feel his headache from Palm Beach County (and his disconnect isn't new). Kristof says (according to Oprah): "Defining what is cruel, is of course, extraordinarily difficult." Anyone want to disagree with that one?
- At the beginning of the show and at the end, Oprah said: "How we treat the least of beings among us determines our own humanity." The least. Oprah, tell me how you really feel about sentient nonhumans.
- A new experience for me was feeling bad for Wayne Pacelle. His arguments for Proposition 2, which were appropriate and presented after horrific (yet oddly clinical) video was shown, seemed to fall on deaf ears. He was obviously frustrated by the farmers saying they weren't mistreating "their" animals and that the animals were content because, for instance, all they want is food, water, and to lie down (yes, that's what a pig farmer said when questioned about "his" sows whom he keeps in gestation crates). Pacelle said we treat the animals like commodities, like things, and he spoke of their desire to live and move. All I heard was crickets.
- Jingoism, speciesism and the economic interests of humans ruled the day. The farmers, all of whom were dramatically different in appearance and presentation from Pacelle (and one even alluded to that) are just simple folk carrying on the traditions of their families and working hard to eke out a living in these trying times. One (a factory farmer) spoke of his pride in what he does and he redefined factory farm as: a place where people are happy to go to work and treat the animals well and put the American flag on their product.
The assumption was that your choice is between factory farms and farms like Old McDonald's. The farms chosen for the show sent that message. As you might imagine, there was no mention of what happens to the boy chicks. There was no mention of the sheds that replace cages. There was no mention of debeaking. No mention of tail-docking. No talk of transportation. Not a word about how the animals get pregnant. Nothing about where they're slaughtered or how. No one questioned whether animals are ours to eat.
- The real conflict is the same one that could very well quash Massachusetts' progress toward a ban on greyhound racing in next month's election: The livelihood of people versus the treatment of animals. Simply put, people's jobs are more important. That was the message, loud and clear. Julie Buckner, who is a No on Prop 2 spokesperson, said: "No one wants to see animals suffer. I don't. I don't want animals to suffer, but I don't want people to suffer." City slickers like Wayne Pacelle would put these unsophisticated, sweet folk out of business (so they say, though the people already treating animals better say that's not true).
For those for Proposition 2, this election couldn't come at a worse time, as when Americans are worried about their bank accounts, it appears that they might take on a new set of values. It's American to care about the jobs of Americans. And it's American to be able to choose how much suffering you're going to cause the least of us. I just wish the show presented the options and their consequences more thoroughly and honestly. It's disingenuous to present the issue as factory farms versus farms of Old McDonald, and though that presentation might not have been intentional, the damage is already done. Whether Oprah's audience chooses to purchase happy meat and happy eggs or not, or votes for Prop 2 or not, they definitely don't have the whole story about what's involved in animal farming no matter who's doing it.
A week or so ago, in response to another blog entry on Oprah and/or Ellen, I said how much I like Stoicism, Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. I should qualify that notion and say that I like only *certain parts* of Stoicism and the major writers in Stoic thought, but those certain parts of Stoicism I like a lot (and the other parts I view as absurd at best, such as the Stoic view of animals).
The part of Stoicism I am most fond of, and which Stoicism shares with other wisdom traditions, is the part about recognizing a huge abyss between what we do and how we do it (i.e. what we ourselves can control; internalities) versus what others do and how they do it and external events (i.e. what we cannot control; externalities). After we recognize the Great Abyss between those things, we cultivate and focus on what we can control (mainly ourselves and our superior choices) and we cultivate indifference toward what we cannot control (mainly the stupidity of others).
That doesn’t mean we don’t talk about or criticize Oprah for making comments like “the least of beings among us” (which sounds strikingly similar to how racists in the 19th century would have referred to Oprah), or criticize Kristof for saying “Defining what is cruel, is of course, extraordinarily difficult” (Are you that obtuse, Kristof? Would you like to live the life of the animals you consume and see if the concept of cruelty is any easier for you?) We ought to talk about and criticize our society’s moral imbecility, but at the same time, we ought not to get excited, angry, or depressed over the progress or lack of progress of the morally-challenged. As the Stoics would correctly advise us (updated for modern scientific knowledge), people are ultimately determined in their behavior through genetics and environment, both immediate and long past, and we should accept the moral stupidity with equanimity and keep advocating for the less fortunate, regardless of whether or not it falls on deaf ears.
I watched the Oprah show yesterday and was stuck by how clean the factory farms were. I live in a very rural area and have NEVER seen such clean barns and equipment. These people clearly knew they were going to be filmed.
I think the television viewers would have also benefited from seeing some of the equipment used for castration, impregnation, ear docking, horn trimming, etc. Pretty gruesome.
I was also disappointed that vegetarianism wasn't even considered an option.
Dang.
The presentation of the issue as Old McDonald versus factory farms was absolutely intentional. Oprah's show is paid for by sponsors, so the conversation, such as it is, will always be confined to a narrow range of opinions acceptable to these sponsors. Veganism could never be presented as a viable option. Its repudiation of agribusiness would not be acceptable to networks (who receive advertising revenue from agribusiness) or to other network sponsors who also rely on their customers' unquestioning toleration of factory farms. I think a show like this is eagerly supported by agribusiness because viewers are left with the perception that all positions have been aired, and none of those positions can potentially decrease the demand for meat or dairy products.
Yes, it seems everyone is very, very happy. I didn't catch the show but found a transcript:
http://www.oprah.com/slideshow/oprahshow/20081008_tows_animals/1
When I saw Oprah standing next to the cages on stage I got a different perspective. Seeing just an individual calf & individual pig in a cage – is visually un-nerving… Sort of like they "live" pre-packaged… Really "imprisoned". Maybe some of the audience got that too?
Julie Buckner the "Californians for Safe Food" representative began a sentence with: "We can either buy animal products…."
Stop right there! We can either buy animal products – OR NOT. I hope some in the audience figured out the missing logic in Buckner's statement and decide the ethical (unspoken) alternative.
Meanwhile it's true… the bulk of the panel & audience seemed fixated at trying to justify any of it. Big cage, small cage… money for him, money for me… money for us. Just please give us moral absolution – and stay away from our wallets.
But – this "baby talk" to the audience by Pacelle was a real doosie: "Are we so uncharitable that we cannot let these animals, who make the ultimate sacrifice for us, move around a little bit?" Of course, making animals more comfortable while they wait to (happily) to get murdered… I mean "sacrificed" for us sounds great
Give chickens bigger paper to stand on & let dairy calves move… What have we become?
David's comment above hit the nail on the head as to why we didn't (and won't for a long time) hear about vegan living as a viable option. Oprah (and The NY Times (!)) is bought and paid for by advertisers, including the multi-billion dollar animal agriculture industry. This is *not* conspiracy; it is hegemony – complete, unquestioned dominance of cultural prejudice and financial/economic power over any opinions contrary to the economic interests of animal agriculture or contrary to the cultural prejudices of most people in our society.
Fortunately, the Internet has become (at least for now) a forum for discussion that isn’t nearly as dominated by powerful and wealthy economic interests and it could help foster transparency, disclosure, and honest discussion that outlets like Oprah and The NY Times (and therefore writers like Kristof) are financially forbidden to encourage.
Well, it's not just Oprah's sponsors that have influence over the content of her show.
Yesterday's show was intentionally set up to feign an "unbiased" message — Oprah stated clearly that she was just offering the "facts" and that the viewers could then decide for themselves how they feel about it. The show was prefaced right from the start by emphasizing that the intention of the following hour was NOT to promote vegetarianism or veganism. Oprah carefully worded her sentences. And I could see the strain in her face in a controlled effort not to "say" exactly how she truly felt.
Oprah (along with Howard Lyman) was sued by the beef industry in the late 90's for speaking out on one of her shows, exposing the industry for their practices and cautioning people about mad cow disease. The beef industry essentially claimed that Oprah and Howard Lyman had "disparaged" beef, misinformed consumers, and caused damage ($11 million) to the industry itself. Though Oprah and Mr. Lyman won the lawsuit after spending millions of dollars in defense, I'm sure it has been a thorn in her side. During yesterday's show, it was pretty clear where her sympathies lie (pro-prop 2), but I think she carefully watches her step to avoid any unnecessary red tape, like further entanglement with lawsuits. So, the choice of the factory farm to investigate was obviously cleaned up a bit, talk of the gruesome and tortuous practices of raising and slaughtering animals was avoided (on both sides), and vegetarianism/veganism was pointedly not the topic of the day. We dare not "disparage" meat.
Of course, the most important points were missed. But I expected that. The show didn't disappoint or surprise me. I predicted it would be about happy meat. I watched anyway because I had never seen my favorite "sell out" speak before. The only crucial thing I learned from the show is that Wayne Pacelle is a hottie. Never knew that. So I guess it was worth the watch.
Hi Dan – you're right about the advertisers… and how main stream media avoids telling the truth in fear of losing them.
That's where I think the internet has become a total "surprise" to the meat industry. I don't think they factored in truthful information being readily available…
I think they (the animal users) felt much more cozy a few years ago – before cyber-activists – like you… like Mary… like all of us, who spread the word, on (and off) the internet. Main stream media is good for citcoms and edited, watered down, censured shows… like Ellen & Oprah.
I completely forgot about Howard Lyman and that lawsuit (not sure how that slipped my mind–it certainly explains a lot)!
Thanks, bunny!
Bea and all,
Notice how Ellen has gone vegan, though, and has said on her show that, I believe the quote was, "I don't eat any of that stuff anymore." She's definitely walking on a tightrope, but rather than having Dr. Oz on ad nauseum (like Oprah), at least she went out on a limb (for the mainstream world) and had Dr. Neal on.
I care about their shows because of the behemoth reach they have into MY world (suburban housewives. . . seriously). I know it probably seems weird that I write about them, but I'm not so much writing about them as about the message that "my people" are getting. I end up having to do a lot of damage control and it's always good for me to have a heads up about what they're hearing.
Bunny,
Good point. I forgot about that also.
Mary,
I will give Ellen credit for that quote and for having Dr. Neal on the show. Talking about the health benefits of going vegan is about as daring as mainstream daytime TV talk show hosts can get without losing too much advertising revenue, alienating the prejudiced fans, or incurring wrathful lawsuits from the greedy multi-billion dollar ag industry. This is why, for example, Ellen, even if she agreed with, say, Gary Francione 100%, would/could never have him as a guest on her show. Advertising revenues would be yanked. Angry emails from prejudiced, but guilt-ridden fans would mount. And lawsuits from animal agriculture would at least threaten, if not come down like a ton of bricks. Overall, an ugly scene, to be sure.
I understand keeping tabs on the mainstream kool-aid for damage control and even plain curiosity, but I wouldn’t monitor society’s progress with it until at least 5 to 10% of the US population is vegan (not that you are monitoring society’s progress with it, but just saying…).
I should add that it’s not that Gary Francione would say anything shocking or surprising, but that he would speak truthfully, transparently, and honestly about the issue of the institution of slaughtering innocent sentient beings for our gustatory preferences and why that is wrong by our society’s existing standards of morality. But honestly pointing out such blind spots is a big taboo on national TV and newspaper, what with all the advertising revenue streaming in from Big Animal Ag and its retail support.
Orwell’s 1984 has been with us longer than we know.
Yes, certainly shows like Oprah & Ellen reach mainstream America… And it's better than nothing I suppose.
I admire any journalist, news caster, or public figure that even brings the "taboo" (meat) subject up. They are pioneers in their own right. These stories make little fissures – enough cracks & chinks will someday amount to significant change. Or so we hope…
I watched the Oprah show and I turned on my optimistic button in my head. Though I'm not always able to do it, I consciously chose to see people the way dogs seem to see people – and see only the good qualities.
The show began with Nicholas Kristof, who by saying he didn't want to preach vegetarianism still planted the vegetarian seed by mentioning it as an option, recounted a story of geese sentience: "Very often, one goose would bravely step away from the panicked flock and walk tremulously toward me. It would be the mate of the one I had caught, male or female, and it would step right up to me, protesting pitifully. It would be frightened out of its wits, but still determined to stand with and comfort its lover."
It made me teary eyed just thinking about it. And I'm sure I wasn't alone. The Oprah messageboard includes people who say they're thinking about vegetarianism or they've decided to go veg after watching that video. It was NOT merely a pro prop 2 show. It was NOT merely a happy meat promotion. It was planting the seeds of compassion for animals.
Elaine,
Color me shocked. If anyone got a vegetarian message from that show, more power to them! I'm thrilled.
It was an opportunity to say so much more. And, that opportunity was, indeed, taken up by the anti-proposition 2 farmers that were, in the end, made to seem sympathetic — which makes me sick to my stomach.
On the other hand, though, the show was watchable. They showed enough to get people thinking and, hopefully, to incite them to seek more information.
In the back of most people's minds – even though they are only presented with 2 versions of "meat"… (factory farmed or free-range) they still must deal with the "welfare" aspect. And to an extent recognize and face the fact that these are sentient beings. That's got to get people thinking about the 3rd option… at least some people anyway.
I believe that the more animal issues are evaluated the more people will choose the ethical 3rd option. And for the others, it's got to be in their thoughts at least… if they're questioning "cage sizes". Maybe with enough vocalization and confrontation they will eventually listen to their inner voice – the one that tells them it's wrong… cages, death and meat… all of it's wrong.
As I'm thinking about what Bea wrote, many of us became vegetarians before the advent of "happy meat." We didn't need that "step" of cage-free eggs/free-range chickens, cows, etc. as an intermediate step in the continuum and a catalyst to make the connection. I think happy meat has unfortunately now *provided* a second option between the first and third, slowing down, delaying, or even arresting a person's journey to vegetarianism, and that's a shame. It's simply superfluous to those who would otherwise make the connection anyway. Whereas eating dairy was the intermediate (and misinformed) step of choice for many of us on our journey from vegetarianism to veganism because we didn't realize dairy industry practices were just as heinous and wrong — it's kind of like happy meat is the new dairy, isn't it? Or at least it is yet just one more extraneous misinformed step on the way to veganism, pushing veganism even further out toward the "extreme" edge of the ever-expanding "spectrum" of compassionate action.
Is the recent existence of happy animal products really bringing *more* people over to vegetarianism than if it had never been promoted? Somehow I think not. Apart from discussing the obvious moral aspects of welfarism, I think the new option of happy animal products is deterring many conscientious able minds from making the easy leap over to vegetarianism. But that's just what I think — I could be wrong.
The steps between an omnivore and a vegan represent misinformation and nothing more. I won't get into the difficulty of becoming a vegan, which seems to be a sore spot for some. But I understand that it takes time to transition. But that never means that someone should not candidly be given the facts and truth as they stand. The facts/truth show that all those steps are equally wrong, and more importantly hurtful and tortuous to the animals.
Of course, I'm preaching to the choir :-). Guess I just needed to ramble. Sorry if I digressed off the topic of Oprah.
Well put – I agree that "happy meat" has somehow become the "new dairy"… just another step or degree that keeps many away from veganism. I think however, that most people (because they fear radical change) require these "steps"… For many, just the idea of considering animal "welfare" is a major shift. I hope the onslaught of information regarding health, the environment and the animals will all add up to change (someday). Regrettably, it's just not all going to improve in a sudden or noticable way – but rather in degrees and increments… baby steps and small "victories" might be all that our generation can expect. But it marks the beginning for future change and for the inevitable correction of attitudes. We all believe that change is long over due and we are impatient for the fairness that sentient animals deserve… Pity that the world is not ready to recognize their rights. In the mean time, we've just got to keep at our message and hope that it makes it easier for the next generation to continue the fight till all the cages are empty.
Impractical and deceptive, "happy meat" is the last straw omnivores cling to – Let's make sure that veganism is there to offer the sustainable and ethical alternative. They'll come around… sooner or later – they just have to.
I agree with everything you say, Bea.
It's just funny though (well, not really funny) that those who choose to buy happy animal products are not really making a change at all if you think about it. Whereas you and I and other veggies have totally changed our diets (and of course our lifestyles), the only actual thing happy meat folks have done is chosen to move from one meat shelf to another when they go grocery shopping (the "regular meat" shelf to the "happy meat" shelf). That's it. No meaningful change has occurred for the animals through this pointless action. Though they probably feel as though they've made a big change – that's all they've done – switched meat shelves. Because what's sitting in their plates come dinner time, and what's going into their mouths and tummies is still the SAME meat they bought yesterday, it just comes from a different farm with negligible reforms.
So, at the end of the day, it's really an illusion.
But, I suppose if there is a mind shift for them – a switch in their perception toward animals and a trigger for more compassion that will lead to real veggyism – than I *guess* it helps. Well, I hope so anyway.
As a big aside, I really think this next election is going to have a strong impact on every area of American's lives (well, and consequently the world's, too)…and that includes any progression in the terms of animal welfare/rights and environmentalism. Already the voting lists are being tampered with (http://www.gregpalast.com/) and things don't look good. If we are served McCain/Palin (as we were served Bush/Cheney without the popular consent), we may be looking at a whole new ballgame in terms of where animal rights are headed (read: regression). If they win (more like "usurp"), I consider McCain as good as lying on the marble slab (both figuratively and realistically), and our new Bush/Cheney/Rove protege (or shall I say, debutante) — the gun-toting, aerial-wolf killing, moose-eating VP will be the one running the scene as Cheney did (some of you may not agree with me, but take a good look at the part of the VP debate where she aligns herself with Cheney in her definition of the job description of VP's authority as being "flexible" and expanding outside of its current boundaries — that's scary). The point I make is that things may not get better in terms of social injustice, but much worse. If you have read the two following articles…
http://www.alternet.org/rights/102220/is_posse_comitatus_dead/?page=1
http://www.alternet.org/rights/101958/thousands_of_troops_are_deployed_on_u.s._streets_ready_to_carry_out_%22crowd_control%22/
…you already know that the US govt is deploying troops…here in the US…in the event that the natives will get restless (civil unrest), which doesn't bode well, especially with what's already happened at the RNC, folks being arrested for no good reason, including Amy Goodman herself. Anyway, I guess my point is that activists may be in for a really tough four years, not just in terms of making a dent in turning around social injustice and animal exploitation, but in terms of our ever-diminishing civil liberties. Never think things are on total linear path toward collective enlightenment, because moral regression is always around the corner, and it's always good to be prepared.
And if it comes down to that…what methods would you take to defend your rights? Right now, that should be the most important topic on the table for ALL activists. How far are you willing to go should this country become a police state, as is predicted by some very informed investigators?
And what's your definition of civil disobedience and violence? Are do we/you have a plan for the months ahead?
(Whoa. Sorry, that was a long ass digression into Mordor. I'll shut up now. Where the hell did I make Oprah go?)
(rambling)bunny – I definately see your point about people only changing meat shelves, or packages or whatever makes them think they're making a difference. It's a pitiful, hollow gesture – I know.
I try hard to stay positive – If I can get personal here… the last 10 months for me have been just awful. I'm attempting to stretch my hopes so that I'll have the courage to fight another day. That's why I try to see every little spark in the right direction as a plus. It's for my survival – I have to.
Now – on to the reality that we live in. Yes, I'm very fearful for the animals under a Palin/McCain/Cheney administration. I know Obama isn't sympathetic to "Animal Rights". However, I do believe he would evaluate school lunches objectively and reduce/eliminate certain (quantities) of animal "foods"… I think he would down-scale the military which also consumes billions of tons of animal products. I believe he would promote a health agenda that would support more vegetable farmers than meat farmers. I think he would encourage the EPA to enforce regulations concerning violations by the animal agriculture industries. Animal farming sucks for the environment and sucks for the residents who live nearby.
No, the US isn't all going vegan under his administration – not hardly… but I do see that he might level the playing field a bit. The meat industry might see a decline in their special favors and excessive funding/tax breaks during the last 8 years? Maybe these things – might add up to change? Maybe if people started to pay the true cost of "meat" they'd eat considerably less? I also read somewhere that the meat industry is worried that Prop 2 initiatives may go national… Banning battery and gestation crates from coast to coast…
Yes, this will create more "happy meat" – BUT, it would also severely increase the cost of animal products. And for most it would become prohibitive. Maybe then the meat industry would begin to explore alternative "vat" meat? Or invest in protein replacements? I know I'm trying to think positive again… I just see an Obama administration as a much better scenario for the animals than a moose murderer… She is the absolute enemy to all human and animal rights.
I cannot answer the question of where I would draw the line to defend what rights… The coming months present me with a myriad of concerns. I suppose my actions would depend on the circumstances of survival. Living to fight another day is part of that strategy.
Of course, I hope that Obama wins as well. At least on the surface, I know he will attempt to make some changes for the better (and I think most importantly his presidency alone will give a big boost to America's morale). Going in the direction of a little bit more good is always better than going a lot bad in the other direction (deeper into Mordor). I do try to be optimistic and hopeful. But I guess experience keeps holding me back – knowing all that has happened in the past makes the future look bleak to me. I think one of America's problems is that the majority of its citizens (not excluding many liberals) never see what's coming down the pike because they refuse to believe certain things could ever happen (the "sun rises and falls every day" sort of mentality). Just like they refused to believe that the govt could lie to them (about Iraq, WMD in Iraq, Al Queda/Saddam Hussein collusion, and on and on — that was all considered wacky "conspiracy theory" until the "beloved" Michael Moore decided to make a movie and "uncover" the truth by basically parroting the facts that lesser-known genuine investigators had dug up years earlier). America was on the decline the minute Bush got into office – it was apparent at the time to anyone reading alternative news (which were far fewer people back then – for there were significantly less disillusioned folks). Many things could have been done to remedy the situation at the time. But now it is too late to easily turn around the many laws and established corruption that Bush and company insidiously (in some cases, flagrantly) put into effect the past eight years. I had to have a good laugh the other day when I watched Christiane Amanpour (a guest on the Bill Maher show) say with all sincerity that she thinks America is now on the decline and losing dominance – and ironically she said it with an air of fresh discovery. I guess now it's finally acceptable to actually say it "out loud." If Christiane Amanpour says it, than I guess it must be true. 😛
I don't mean to be a "downer." I just wanted to make the point (in my earlier post) that I don't see a whole lot of discussion by activists on the internet (blogs, forums, etc.) regarding what *may* happen if the McCain/Palin ticket wins, and I'd be interested in what they have to say about it. Sure, if Obama wins, it's a moot discussion. But after witnessing the rape of the past two elections, I'm not all that optimistic about the rapists going away and not tampering with this election as well.
I have been reading a lot on the history of nonviolence, as well as the recommended books (by Mary) on animal liberation. Aside from provoking general thoughts on these subjects, I have been thinking about the coming months should Boris and Natasha take over. Needless to say, I'm bracing myself just in case. And though I'm not an activist that stands out on the corner of KFC with signs and leaflets, I am concerned for the future of activists if they are not ready for what they might be in for. The mix of various (multi-track as they call it) types of activism may not be effective in reaching goals. For example, if you've got a peaceful protest going on, Gandhian in quality, it's effectiveness could be totally lost with just one present person with the contrary view that smashing in a window is a better means to the end. If there are more extreme crackdowns on activists, organizing and getting on the same page may become all important.
I apologize if I've *really* gone off topic at this point…