Posted on 06/26/2002 10:34:39 AM PDT by IMRight
Ken Feld's Line in The Sand
Author: Brian Tubbs, Senior Policy Analyst, National Legal and Policy Center
The most popular legend in American history stems from the gallant sacrifice made by roughly 180 besieged fighters at an old Spanish mission in San Antonio, Texas. These fighters included ex-U.S. Congressman and frontier hero Davy Crockett and the legendary Jim Bowie. According to popular history, when informed that reinforcements would not be coming, Colonel William Barrett Travis, the Alamo's commander, called for an assembly in the main courtyard. Standing before his men, Travis told them the grim news and explained that their stand against Santa Anna's army would likely be a fight to the death. He then lifted his saber and drew a line in the sand directly in front of his men. He asked those that wished to remain with him to step across the line. The others could depart in peace. All but one crossed. While some historians discount the Travis story as myth, there can be no doubt concerning the line drawn by Kenneth Feld, chairman and CEO of Feld Entertainment, the multi-million dollar corporate giant that brings wonder and excitement to kids and grown-ups alike year after year. Feld's line in the sand wasn't drawn with a saber, but rather with a letter.
You may not recognize the name of Ken Feld right away, but you are surely familiar with his company's leading attractions: Ringling Brothers' & Barnum and Bailey's "Greatest Show on Earth," Disney's "World on Ice," and Siegfreid & Roy's Las Vegas magic show. Millions flock to see Feld's hugely popular circus production each year, driving one particular activist group to despair and some might say desperation.
Long an opponent of circus entertainment involving trained animals, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and other similar "animal rights" groups have frequently targeted Ken Feld's entertainment empire. Feld has dismissed past attacks, recognizing that they speak only for the narrowest of fringes in the American cultural landscape. That all changed in the summer of last year.
Expert elephant trainer Mark Gebel, son of the legendary Gunther Gebel, was leading a line of elephants into the arena for a grand finale of a show on August 25, 2001 in San Jose, California. Witnesses allege Gebel yelled and lunged at a female elephant named Asia and struck her with an ankus (a tool used by elephant trainers to guide the animal). According to these witnesses* claims, Asia darted forward and was later found with a "bloody spot" on her left front leg. Gebel was charged with "elephant abuse" under California Penal Code Section 596.5c. The case went to trial in December.
The major problem with these "witnesses" is that they admitted, under oath, that they did not have a clear view of Gebel and did not actually see him strike Asia. As for the alleged wound, which the prosecution witnesses acknowledged as being the size of a nickel, a veterinarian's examination shortly after the incident found no sign of an injury. One of the witnesses - a San Jose police officer - even admitted to attending an animal rights conference where *new tactics* to ban circuses were addressed.
With no evidence bolstering the prosecution's claims, the defense rested without calling a single witness. The jury took a mere two hours to exonerate Gebel, clearing him of all charges. Gebel's attorney, following the verdict, summed up the situation quite well: "This was a witch-hunt mounted by animal rights activists, and the case should never have come to court."
In response to the charges, Feld declared: "The whole case was an orchestrated campaign by a group of extremists who feel their mission is to put an end to animals in circuses by ruining the good name and integrity of an innocent young man with an impeccable record." Feld understands the ruthlessness and resolve of the activist community. Commenting recently, he said: "They tried to advance their extremist agenda by fabricating a case against an innocent man. They used the court system in an attempt to tarnish his reputation. It backfired."
On January 7, 2002, Feld decided to fight back. In an open letter, Feld appealed "to the animal rights organizations that continue to waste their members' valuable financial contributions and the organizations' human resources attacking responsible animal care providers, instead of spending them on the care of animals." Feld's letter, which ran as a full-page advertisement in newspapers across the country, called on animal rights activists to eschew media-savvy, agenda-driven campaigns against "responsible organizations...who care for, raise, live, work, and play with their endangered animal partners under carefully regulated laws." Instead, he urged them to focus efforts and resources on "the lives of animals who are starving, ill, overpopulating, and dying in habitats that can no longer support them."
Feld blasted PETA for rank hypocrisy in addition to recklessly pursuing a fanatic agenda. He pointed out how, in 1999, PETA killed over half of the 2,103 pets it collected from homes. And he denounced PETA for continually opposing organizations, such as Feld Entertainment, that have a proven track record of responsible animal care. One would think that such organizations would merit the praise of groups like PETA, which claim to support animal welfare. Not so.
Most troubling of all, Feld's letter questioned PETA*s support of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a group classified by the FBI as a terrorist organization.
In the end, Feld's letter laid out a clear choice for those committed to animal welfare. They can be part of the solution (e.g., efforts such as Ringling*s Center for Elephant Conservation) or part of the problem (e.g., supporting headline-grabbing groups like PETA or terrorist organizations like ALF).
"Something needed to be done," Feld now says of his decision and the letter. "For too long, animal rights activists have enjoyed the perceived moral high ground. Their efforts to demonize accepted and enriching experiences of American circus goers have been largely uncontested." But the letter did more than put animal rights activists on the spot. Feld isn't the only individual targeted by extreme organizations, and Mark Gebel isn't the only man such groups have tried to destroy. By his example, Ken Feld has offered all organizations and companies in America a clear choice. When attacked with baseless charges by organizations committed to extremist agendas, Feld's letter illustrated that a company can bow to the pressure and make concessions or it can stand tall and fight back. So far, few have made the latter choice.
"It's not easy," admits Feld. "But it's important to take a stand. If you give in every time your opponents come after you, they will simply come after you more. Animal rights groups oppose critical research that saves human lives. They want to dictate what the public can eat, wear or enjoy for entertainment. We thought it was time to say 'enough is enough.'" History bears Feld out, as many corporations have found themselves the repeated victims of vicious corporate campaigns.
PETA is one of several fairly effective organizations at launching agenda-driven campaigns against institutions and corporations. PETA's Web site explains how local animal rights activists can pull off successful "corporate campaigns," as they are usually called. "A campaign is a long-term plan of action focused on one particular issue," the Web site says. "Set an ambitious but achievable goal, plan escalating levels of action, and be prepared to stick with it until you win." The site includes helpful hints on thoroughly researching the entity you're going to attack, determining which segment of the public to which you wish to appeal, and deciding on a precise strategy of reaching that portion of the public.
Victims of PETA corporate campaigns include McDonald's, Burger King, Gillette, General Motors, Calvin Klein, The Gap, and even The March of Dimes. "Our opponents know we never let up," boasts Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's president and co-founder, in a recent Reuters news story. "They have to concede to some degree. They have to alleviate some of the misery they are causing before we back down." PETA isn't alone.
Labor unions have perfected the *corporate campaign* to an art form, extracting numerous concessions from their targets. In the words of AFL-CIO leader Richard Trumka: *Corporate campaigns swarm the target employer from every angle, great and small, with any eye toward inflicting upon the employer the death of a thousand cuts rather than single blow.*
Investigative journalist Ken Timmerman's just-published expose on Jesse Jackson reveals how the self-proclaimed "civil rights activist" has, by way of the *corporate campaign,* turned racial politics into a personal wealth-building empire. Following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Jackson approached a public relations consultant for advice on how he could position himself as the new leader of black Americans. His profile rose dramatically in the years that followed, thanks to his colorful oratory, media showmanship, several celebrated interventions in foreign policy, massive voter registration drives, and two attempts at the Democratic presidential nomination. But what defined Jackson*s strength in American society were his high-profile showdowns with corporate America.
Jackson's success as a corporate campaigner has been stunning. Many companies have made sweeping concessions to Jackson to avoid boycotts or high-profile protests. Some of these concessions have involved direct financial payoffs to Jackson, his family, his organizations, or his cronies. Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, explains the Jackson approach: *He makes a threat, the corporate folks who are being threatened cave in by giving money to Jackson*s groups, or friends, or business associates and then a boycott is averted.* Indeed, the numbers speak for themselves. In 1996, Jackson*s Rainbow/PUSH had a gross income of $695,000 and by the year 2000, it grossed $17 million.
Even in the wake of devastating revelations of adultery and financial mismanagement, Jackson continues to wield his clout successfully. The latest example of Jackson*s stamina as a shakedown artist is Toyota. Last year, Jackson threatened to boycott the auto manufacturing giant for unsatisfactory minority representation in the company and a controversial advertising campaign for Toyota*s RAV4 that featured a black man with tooth art. Toyota, at first, denied Jackson*s allegations of discrimination and stereotyping. But, over time and under considerable pressure, Toyota adjusted its statements and eventually embraced Jackson.
In May of last year, Toyota acknowledged extensive negotiations with Jackson, saying at one point that they were *fully engaged in dialog and understand [Rainbow/PUSH*s] viewpoint.* When Jackson called off the threat of a boycott, Toyota expressed public relief. Jackson soon afterwards renewed his boycott threat, and Toyota practically pleaded with him in the press not to go through with it. "Our commitment is to work with Rev. Jackson, and we appreciate his input. There is no boycott, and no need for one," implored one Toyota executive.
In August, Toyota and Jackson jointly announced a multi-billon dollar diversity project that included a promise from the auto maker to hire a minority public relations firm. That firm turned out to be Chicago-based Burrell Communications, owned by one of Jackson*s longtime supporters, Thomas Burrell. In addition, during the time Jackson and Toyota were working together, the auto maker sold a $300 million bond offering, a portion of which went to two of Jackson's biggest financial supporters on Wall Street. And, to cap things off, a high-ranking Toyota executive participated in Jackson*s 2002 Wall Street Project Conference, sharing the stage with Jackson and other supporters of Rainbow/PUSH.
Feld understands he is blazing a trail for many corporate leaders, who, like Toyota, have caved into their adversaries' demands to avoid costly public confrontations. Like Colonel Travis at the Alamo, Feld is taking a stand against the nefarious tactics employed by groups like PETA and other cultural attackers. Generations from now, it may be said that, like the Alamo's importance in liberating Texas from Santa Anna's cruel tyranny, it was Ken Feld's courageous stand that showed the way for others to free American businesses and families from the cruel oppression of malicious corporate campaigns dangerously employed by the furthest fringes of our society.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.