Pamela Anderson is in Australia this week for a brief stint in the Big Brother house. I learned quite a few things about Pamela Anderson that I didn’t in her time in the house, for instance she is a strict vegetarian and an advocate for PETA.

As I’m trekking to work each morning, I listen to 102.9 Hot Tomato with Luke and at the moment a shifting set of co-hosts while they re-establish their morning crew. The current female that is on the morning show, made a statement that she doesn’t feel that Pamela Anderson is really a supporter for PETA because she accepted the job for Big Brother, however KFC are one of their major sponsors.

The discussion continued and Luke’s point of view was that it was a job, regardless of who was supporting/sponsoring the show. He felt that she has, in his terms, serious ying yang, because even though KFC sponsor the show, she was willing to put her case forward. The female said she shouldn’t have taken the job and that should have been her form of protest.

I don’t agree with that at all, I think she would have received orders of magnitude more press because she took the job, pressed her point and created a media feeding frenzy. Consider for a moment if she had turned the job down, if it even made the evening news, it would have been a one line quip that Pamela Anderson was asked to enter the Big Brother house but turned down the role due to conflicting interests in sponsorship. There wouldn’t have been more said about it and it certainly wouldn’t have been mentioned repeatedly.

What do you think, should she have taken the job and in which case do you think would have gathered more press ?