Sunday, February 17, 2013
Week 6
Sorry, again, for the lateness of this post. All I want you to do this week is compare and contrast two websites:
http://www.peta.org and http://www.humanesociety.org
Read the About Us page for each, and then browse the websites, watch some videos, read some articles, and answer the following questions:
1. Who is the audience for each website?
2. What gives each website its credibility?
3. How do these websites compare with each other in their audiences, goals, and rhetorical approaches (logos, pathos, ethos)?
4. How do the websites compare with what you thought about these organizations in the past?
Please be thoughtful in your answers.
As usual, your first post is due by Monday. Try to get the post done before class, and then respond to three of your classmates by Friday. Please try to give reasons for agreeing and disagreeing with evidence from the website, or any personal experience you have with these organizations. Stay academic and professional.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Upon looking over both websites, and reading articles on each, I was rather surprised by what I saw. Both PETA and The Humane Society attempt to draw a similar audience, animal lovers. They do so in 2 very different ways, however.
ReplyDeletePETA tends to be more aggressive about their approach. Their articles use significant amounts of emotion, mostly rage, to try to turn you to their points. It's hard to give them credibility when they read like a tell all dollar magazine you can pick up in the checkout aisle of Walmart, but if you ignore the rage, you actually start to see where the sources get their information, and that there is credibility and even logic beneath the hate.\
The Humane Society on the other hand tends to have a more mellow approach. The topics are no less capable of sparking rage, they simply use emotion in a different way. They play on your sadness for the situations they present. As an organization I've always given The Humane Society credibility, but they definitely don't abuse it. They have a number of factual articles, using very little in the way of anything speculative.
All in all, though, I found looking at PETA's site to be more eye opening than the Humane Society's. PETA is known for their wild advertisements. They offer more shock value than real value. Yet, in reading the articles, I saw that it wasn't just some teenage level attention seeking that the organization stands for, but an organization that actually wants to help animals. Whether I believe their methods are effective or not, they present good information that I otherwise would have likely not seen unless I looked through their website.
Robert I liked the way you described the two sites. It was very colorful. I read a lot of the articles on PETA hoping one would change my mind about their tactics. I liked the one with Wanda Sykes but I felt like since it had so little in the way of being out there, it was a very short story. I wanted to be able to read more. I also really liked the one about Hawthorn as it was more facts and less fluff. If more of there stuff was like this I would probably look more favorably upon them.
DeleteHere's an article I read recently. Hit me on a few levels.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.examiner.com/article/dutch-the-service-dog-ordered-killed
After reading PETA's and the Humane Society's About Us section and watching some videos on each site, I concluded that both are targeting animal lovers and even people who just like animals. Pathos and Ethos are targeted pretty strongly, but more so Pathos. The companies are pulling at the heart strings of their audience. After the watching the videos however, has shown how each company differs in their approach to grabbing their audience. The Humane Society seems to have a more delicate approach. The Humane Society is reaching out to the community to help animal owners with the care of their animals and giving them the knowledge to do right by their animals. PETA goes in the same direction, but in a more " in your face" approach. PETA will put on drastic demonstrations, etc...
ReplyDeleteBoth companies are credible to me. The evidence and information they have, whether it be video, statistics, or general information, is very compelling. I do believe that PETA can go a little overboard with the way they go about relating their information and because of their aggressivness, it can seem they are not credible. I used to be a vegan, mostly because of family influences, but as I grew up, I chose that lifestyle for myself, until medically I was told I could no longer have a diet so strict. The book that ultimately persuaded me as a young adult and is a very good read is called, "A Diet for a New America," by John Robbins.
Nickie,
DeleteYou are very right about HSUS taking a softer approach on their website. I did read on article that put down a gentlemen that worked for many different companies that are against them. They spoke of how he used horrible tactics to try to discredit them, but was even featured on "20/20" for the things he did and people he refuses to acknowledged as his employers. People don't like the credible pull the HSUS has in court. Well, the bad ones anyways.
I agree with the piece about the humane society appealing to the hearts of their viewers, what I raise question about is the policies which they abide by in order to "put an animal down." Apparently an agrresive animal which can not be taught proper discipline within a certain amount of time, can be deemed un- adoptable, and be put to sleep. These measures seem a bit over board for an orginization dedicated to animal rights.
DeleteI agree that both companies carry credibility, and that they go about it in very different ways. I'm glad that this was the week's blog, as I'd otherwise have continued to think of PETA as an organization full of insane individuals. It's not completely gone, but lessened at the very least.
DeleteI like your point of view on the two sites. They both definitively use Pathos a lot but until taking a look at your post I didn't realize they also used Ethos a lot. That was a very good observation.
DeleteI looked over both sites. They are both aimed at people who care about the treatment of animals. I think PETA uses their celebrity endorsements and amount of members as a source of credibility where as HSUS used their years in service and the things they have accomplished as their credibility.
ReplyDeleteI read the about us sections on both and before reading any articles I instantly went to the FAQs. I unfortunately read PETAs first.
Why does PETA sometimes use nudity in its campaigns?
How do circuses train animals?
Where can I find leather alternatives?
Does animal experimentation save human lives?
How is a company certified as cruelty-free?
Why does PETA use controversial tactics?
What’s wrong with wearing wool?
I felt like everyone of these that I read was nothing more than them whining then actually answering the questions. They all used bits and pieces of each other as well.
The HSUS FAQs on the other hand were real questions about retrieving information from them and their site.
What does The HSUS do?
How is The HSUS affiliated with my local humane society?
How is The HSUS affiliated with other animal organizations?
Can I get more information about The HSUS and its organizations?
Does The HSUS offer programs or literature for children?
How can I get information about The HSUS' financial status and fund allocations?
How can I receive The HSUS magazine, All Animals?
Does The HSUS have a catalog or store?
How can I receive an animal calendar?
Can I get information about The HSUS’s financial statements from my state government?
I was honestly very disappoint with PETA in comparison to HSUS. I felt like HSUS was more concerned with going about their fight in a more professional manner. Through legislation, litigation, investigation, education, science, advocacy and field work. If celebrities are going to fight for a cause they believe in I am all for it but using fear and controversial tactics and being okay with it just makes me question being apart of it.
The last sentence was meant about PETA.
DeleteHolly,
DeleteI think PETA goes about their advertisments professionally, but just in the opposite direction than the Humane Society. PETA is definately more aggressive, but I wouldn't say they are unprofessional. I agree that using fear may not be appropriate in some cases, but PETA does get the attention they are seeking and that makes them successful. The Humane Society is much more gentle and family friendly, where PETA is more hard core.
Nickie,
DeleteI agree they aren't ALL unprofessional, but I was referring to their naked campaign in general. I should have been more specific. I read their answer to why they use controversial tactics and was just was not impressed with their excuse.
Excellent points, I didn't even consider the years of servise when viewing these sites. However, I think that both push an agenda to their benefit, they both execute that agenda in a different manner. At the end of the day, they are both businesses that serve mulitple purposes.
DeleteHolly, while I do agree that the HS does seem more professional, I would argue that the tactics used by PETA are more likely to draw attention.
DeleteYou mentioned it, so lets use it. The Naked Campaign. It's eye catching, as putting a model up front and center barely covered is an effective way to catch eyes, and attention is attention, good or bad. It's juvenile, but not entirely. Sometimes, when you feel strongly about something, you'll do anything to make others aware of it. That is what PETA did.
I like your assessment of the both websites, before reading your post I didn't actually go a read the FAQ sections of either website. Although personally I wouldn't go as far as to say the PETA website was whining, they definitely had a more defensive position throughout the whole site. I think this comes from all the negative feedback they get from their "in your face" campaigns.
DeleteI think both of these websites are pretty much geared towards people who like animals, just like the organizations they represent. They both do a very good job of incorporating animals in their logos, I thought the humane society's logo was clever. The question of credibility is always a tricky one these days because anyone could just buy a domain name and make a website, but both of these are fairly large organizations so I doubt that the case. I think the PETA website is a little more boom, in your face animal rights, while the humane society's website is little more reserved. They just want you to adopt an animal is all. This is probably a good reflection of the organizations as a whole. The website really had no effect on my thoughts on the organizations, I've always thought both did very good work.
ReplyDeleteRobert,
DeleteI agree with your assesment of PETA and how they are very direct without shame of who or whom they offend sometimes. They do have good arguments and objectives, but can come across wrong. All my dogs are pound pups I adopted from the Humane Society and even though it is a "Sarah Mclachlan" type of environment and all the animals look sad and just want a loving home, the Humane Society does seem more gentle with their approach.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter going over both web sites, I think the sites are similar and differnet all in one. They are appealing to the same audience, however PETA seems to take the approach of "rallying the troops" while the Humane Society appeals to it's audience in a much more sensible manner. PETA talks about how much money big opposing organization have and use against them. They lean a little on the aggresive side when getting their pont across. Some of the methods PETA uses to bring attention and recognition to their orginization, like nudity seems a little bizzar, but is probably effective. The Humane Society site takes a more mild approach, using informational videos,and trying to get your smpathetic emotions churning. Both sites are advocates for "Animal Rights" and both present very valid cases and points. I had a decent understanding of what both orginizations did before viewing either site, so my views haven't changed much in that sense, both orginizations are very useful, and serve a good purpose in trying to make sure animals are not abused or mistreated in any way,and bringing recognition to animal abuse.
ReplyDeleteJared,
DeleteI like your scentence about PETA using nudity. I think it is effective because it definately gets your attention, whether it be good or bad attention. They succeeded in their purpose.
Jared,
DeleteI definitely agree with the "Rallying the troops" idea. They are very good at grabbing your attention. I watched the ad Joaquin Phoenix did for not fishing. Although it was attention getting, I was quite sure watching him pretend to drown was going to make me suddenly not want to go fishing anymore. I think it is easier to see the celebrities on their site and get all riled up than it is to just see the mistreatment on the HSUS website and do the same.
Your comments about PETA made me laugh, but I also thought that were spot on. I feel like PETA does try and use more "bizarre" tactics to get their message across. Again, like you said, like works for them in some instances. I don't think it appeals to a wide audience like HSUS though.
DeleteBoth organizations are pro saving the animals but approach there passion in different manners, I liked viewing the history of both organizations and their goals to save the animals. The website’s can be given creditability due to all the people that collaborate to make the organization, the speakers and also the videos. The only organization I had heard of was The Humane Society and that only because I found a puppy and I turned the pup in for their owner to find.
ReplyDeleteLooking into the PETA is an organization I found it to be focused on fighting for the cause of animal cruelty. Although they take in part several other ways to save animals, there approach to attract their audience through some of their videos were very graphic and intend to make the viewer feel the pain animals go through when they are attacked.
The Humane Society had different method of attracting their audience that I believe is people that want to care, adopt and save animals. I found it interesting that actual investigations are conducted to help save animals search and rescue and even provide emergency shelters for animals.
All in all, both websites were very informative.
I definitely agree that both sides want the same thing, but have very different approaches. Unfortunately, PETA doesn't put some of their tamer stuff up in the public eye, choosing to use the extreme instead. The HS is 100% tame. I've seen some pretty graphic things from both, but PETA uses it far more often.
DeleteIt's my belief that for the most part, people view PETA as the boy who cried wolf. They push their hardcore so much, it's hard to remember there is an organization behind that looking to save and protect animals.
Definatley agree with your point about both sides taking a similar approach to their goals. I aslo agree that PETA uses graphic representation to appeal to the emotions of the viewer, which is the opposite of the approach taken by th Humane society.
ReplyDelete