Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Here We Go Again.

Climb inside my head for a moment: a radio commercial for McDonald’s ran in Kansas City last week and made this claim: eating the new Chicken McBites is less risky than petting a stray Pit Bull.

Odd. What’s wrong with that statement?

Could it be an intensive study performed by the University of Pennsylvania a couple years ago that found the top five dog breeds most likely to bite were: Dachsund, Chihuahua, Jack Russell, Australian Cattle Dog and Cocker Spaniel? Pits barely cracked the top 30.

Or maybe it’s just this: if Pit Bulls are so ferocious, after my 11 year old Pit died last year, why did I adopt another one? A dozen years into my apparent suicide attempt, and still no luck.

Better question: what about the hack copywriter that wrote this shitty spot? One wonders why he chose to lazily fall back on such a media-driven myth – one that's been proven wrong time and again. For example, many of the dogs tortured by Michael Vick are now in good homes not mauling people, and at least one became a therapy animal. And surely it couldn't have escaped this f’n jerkoff writer’s mind that many of McDonald’s consumers just might be dog owners.

It seems to me a pretty defensive move to even make the risk argument in the first place. Is there something I need to know about the dangers of eating mechanically-separated meat product?

McDonald’s was at least wise enough to pull the commercial when Pit Bull owners raised hell. But they were careless and wrong to run it in the first place. Yesterday I signed an online petition that demands they go one step further and run a commercial portraying Pits in their true, good light. Maybe then the clouds will finally begin to part.

No comments: