I was sorry to see that The Gazette fell for this story. PETA tried to get us to bite, too, but I wouldn't go for it. The conversation went something like this (after the PETA spokesman explained what PETA was up to).

Me: But Jesus ate meat, didn't he?
PETA: Well, I'm not an expert on that. We're just saying that Jesus would have objected to how corporate farming methods treat animals.
Me: Is Mel Gibson a corporate farmer?
PETA: No, but he feeds animals into that corporate chain.
Me: So you're just picking on Mel Gibson because he's famous.
PETA (with an uncomfortable chuckle): Well, I guess you could say that.
Me: I don't think that's fair. We're not covering that.
PETA: Well, thanks for talking to me.

I've always had a bit of secret sympathy for PETA (are there really people who oppose the ethical treatment of animals?). Even when PETA protests started to get outrageous, I thought they were at least brave and might even be smart. Sometimes you can arrive at a reasonable compromise by starting with an unreasonable position.

Lately, though, PETA has gone too far even for me, and an organization is in trouble when it starts alienating sympathetic simpletons like me. And I certainly feel no obligation to cover a story that exists only because some activist group thinks reporters might be tempted into creating it.

Of course, that's easy to say when you have no time or money to cover the story in the first place.