Educational elephant centric information plus fun and games.

THE REAL ANTI-CIRCUS AGENDA

page 5 of 6

MEDIA SAVVY -- LIBERATION VERSUS CIRCUS

Animal Liberation has repeatedly found the traditional American Circus to be a "soft target" in the court of public debate. Too often individual circuses have failed to recognize what "Animal Rights" are really about (liberation.) and failed to meet the challenge that activists represent. In an age of media savvy frequently tight-lipped show people and their fans simply lack the experience to make their case when facing the trained professionals or celebrity spokespersons trotted out by the opposition. Animal Liberation opposes the circus because training and performance violate their philosophical view of a moral universe. As that very basic truth doesn't make for a compelling sales pitch, liberation secrets its core purpose behind other issues. Circus cannot allow it detractors to continue to create the impression that animal acts exist only to sell tickets and fill seats. Training as an "art form" has always been evident and understood in equestrian performance, and art has a legitimate place in the circus. Encounters with more exotic animals may be conservation tools. Seeing a big cat from a few feet away is vastly different than watching the video image of a cat on AnimalPlanet. But using conservation as an argument calls for more than mere words. Actual efforts in legitimate captive breeding programs, or fund raising for the World Wildlife, or other concrete examples of positive actions bolster the case. Feld's Ringling elephant program has successfully reproduced two generations of captive bred "bulls," offering real hope that elephants can survive if their wild populations disappear. Efforts in Hugo may duplicate Ringling's success.

It's one thing to debate activists protesting in front of a circus or zoo. It's quite another to discuss "animal rights" with the media, or to debate liberationists when the microphone is on and the cameras are rolling. For that, any media consultant would tell you, you need a playbook. No good debater fails to anticipate what the other side is going to say, or fails to formulate counter-arguments and a credible response long before stepping to the podium. Interactions with reporters require the same ongoing preparation and awareness of the issues. Too often liberationists attack circus animal care practices in the media, citing mortalities and AWA violations to support their case. The accusations run for several paragraphs, while the circus response may consist of a single paragraph with a simple, often heartfelt "We love our animals and care for them very well." Followed by a general denial.

Specific accusations require specific rebuttals. But as rebuttals in and of themselves can sound defensive, first it's necessary to change the tenor of the conversation.

Maybe, "There will always be room for improvement in the quality of animal care in zoos, in circuses, and especially in sanctuaries and rescue operations which are not always subject to APHIS inspections. Whether you're a PeTA member, or an animal control officer, or work with performing sea lions, I think we all love our animals and want to give them the best possible care." Now you're not on the defense. THEN you can rebut specifics. And after that you can make your counter-charges. The point is that you can't successfully rebut something you aren't prepared for - not if you're defending the circus, and not if you're running for President. Neither can you counter if you aren't well versed in the weaknesses and inconsistencies on the other side, and if you haven't thought about which of your own attacks appropriately counter's theirs. Academic though this may sound, the other side has thought it through.

In the old days Press Agents knew how to feed reporters a story. Publicists and Marketing staff on some shows still do. Obviously selling the "human interest story" on a particular performer, or general circus should be child's play for any front office. Helping reporters to ask the right questions regarding liberation again means getting off the defensive, and requires some candor. Candor means there's no percentage in defending someone who has lost an Exhibitor's License for violation of the A.W.A. (Unless, perhaps, you happen to work for that show.) Better to say that the system worked and did its job. Better to acknowledge that not everyone should have animals. And as an immediate follow-up, to launch into Liberation's real agenda... That absolutely no one should have exotic animals. Not zoos, not circuses, captive breeding programs. Outside of a Utopian Paradise, the moral outrage associated with Liberation always ends with the extinction of the animals they claim to protect. That's the map we must draw point by point. That's the real story. That's the important story, even for people who will never set foot on a circus lot.

This article reprinted with permission of the author: B.E.Trumble -- 2005