I don't know what the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals does other than create salacious advertising campaigns but the group's latest combines their trademark nudity with puppies and religion! It features the incredibly good looking Polish model Joanna Krupa, who was recently featured on a show my mom and half of America likes to watch called Dancing With the Stars. Anywho, Krupa is naked, in a church, with a halo and wings. She's surrounded by puppies. And that's it ... except for a strategically placed cross covering her ladybits. You can see the ad here at the New York Daily News.

The whole point of such ad campaigns, obviously, is to draw protests. These protests, in turn, garner free publicity. And in a world with the Catholic League, you can be sure this will go according to plan.

But that's not the point of this post. The problem is that many of the news reports have a basic error or inaccuracy.

Here's the headline for the New York Daily News:

Catholic League slams PETA ad featuring Joanna Krupa holding crucifix over nude body

Here's FoxNews:

Critics Blast PETA Ad Showing Nude Joanna Krupa Holding Crucifix

But it's not a crucifix. A crucifix is a cross with the figure of Jesus crucified upon it. A cross without a corpus -- a rendition of Jesus -- is just called a cross. And while the cross she holds is elaborately designed, there's no corpus on it.

Perhaps it's not surprising that reporters on the entertainment beat have such a limited understanding of Christian symbols, but this one isn't that difficult.

The media reports all mentioned that Krupa, a Playboy veteran, is a practicing Catholic. And in the Fox story above, she defends her nudity by referencing none other than Pope John Paul II. The Chicago Sun-Times included this exchange:

Krupa promptly fired back, "As a practicing Catholic, I am shocked that the Catholic League is speaking out against my PETA ads."

Yes, posing naked with the central symbol of Christianity over your crotch. Who could have imagined what would happen next?

I have to admit I did rather appreciate that this article on the matter took issue not with the nudity or use of religious symbols but with the advertisement's horrible Photoshop techniques.