Certainly that would also be a factor, but you're not going to see a PETA video about a happy family farm, or even a factory farm that has comparatively palatable conditions.
I'm not saying that factory farms are generally good things, or even that the AR videos are misleading - indeed, these are the realities of the various animal exploitation industries and they should by all means be put to a stop. What I am saying is that an activist video has an agenda that should be considered when you stop to think about which scenes made the final cut, and that there are probably less extreme examples out there (which are not necessarily good, but which aren't quite as far out there as the ones that get showcased for the purpose of convincing people to stop eating meat).
The same goes in the opposite direction, as was suggested by the OP: Things were probably cleaned up for the purposes of a recreational film that was to be shown nationally in movie theaters. But asserting that it must be so because it doesn't match up with a political video is ignoring the fact that the political video came with a known agenda.
I'm saying that a documentary film is more reliable for information than a movie made primarily for entertainment. We know from watching documentaries that chicken confinements are generally not as clean as they are depicted in Napoleon Dynamite, for example. Though, even in the movie it was a rather disturbing scene, with all the chickens in the small cages.
Though, yeah, the best way to depict chicken confinements would be to have an 'unbiased' person make a documentary from several different confinements and not show just 'the worst' of it. But I have certainly seen AR documentaries that do show more than just 'the worst' considering chicken confinements are awful, no matter how you slice it. I've never heard anything good about battery cages concerning the chickens, just the farmers.
I'm not saying that factory farms are generally good things, or even that the AR videos are misleading - indeed, these are the realities of the various animal exploitation industries and they should by all means be put to a stop. What I am saying is that an activist video has an agenda that should be considered when you stop to think about which scenes made the final cut, and that there are probably less extreme examples out there (which are not necessarily good, but which aren't quite as far out there as the ones that get showcased for the purpose of convincing people to stop eating meat).
The same goes in the opposite direction, as was suggested by the OP: Things were probably cleaned up for the purposes of a recreational film that was to be shown nationally in movie theaters. But asserting that it must be so because it doesn't match up with a political video is ignoring the fact that the political video came with a known agenda.
Reply
Though, yeah, the best way to depict chicken confinements would be to have an 'unbiased' person make a documentary from several different confinements and not show just 'the worst' of it. But I have certainly seen AR documentaries that do show more than just 'the worst' considering chicken confinements are awful, no matter how you slice it. I've never heard anything good about battery cages concerning the chickens, just the farmers.
Reply
Leave a comment