Veg News using meat in photos

[runrevolt]

http://www.quarrygirl.com/2011/04/13/ra ... an-issues/

So here's a good one lighting up the Twitter world right now. Veg News, a high profile vegetarian/vegan promotion magazine has been using stock photos (photos you can purchase online) to complement their recipes and articles regarding vegan foods, etc. Well, the recipes and taglines reference the food as "vegan", but the stock photos are real meat and real dairy. "Readership is outraged".

People are lambasting Veg News, cancelling subscriptions, etc. etc. etc.

Here's my take on it. Yes, it's deceptive, but we are also talking about a high-profile veg/vegan magazine that operates on the same deadlines as any other publication, which are quite rapid. The world of publishing (especially against the internet) is an incredibly demanding and high-paced environment. Publishing also requires pooling together lots of information, in contrast to actually DOING something, such as cooking foods, testing them, PHOTOGRAPHING them, etc. etc. etc. So I don't think using photos of non-vegan food and labeling it vegan in a caption is necessarily undermining the message of veganism or the content of recipes, but is just a NECESSARY EVIL OF THE PUBLISHING WORLD AND IT'S CORRESPONDING DEADLINES.

I'm hard pressed to see how this is harming animals or promoting the harming of animals, though I do understand reader's discomfort.

However, there also seems to be a decent amount of "Holier-than-thou" going on against Veg News right now as I've seen some of these people who are criticizing Veg News also turn around and celebrate Jamie Oliver's, "Food Revolution" series airing again....which is a dude, for all the good he does, also promotes the killing and eating of animals. Those are some serious moral double standards there.

Anyways, curious to hear your take on all this and considerations I might be overlooking.

P.S. - I'm also aware of at least one other vegan food company that used stock photos of real dairy on their product packaging, because they had no other suitable photos to use by the time they needed to release their product. That has been changed now....but no harm, no foul, right?

[BlueRose]

You beat me to posting this. Given the comments made by people who had previously worked there, I think it's pretty clear that they were pushing an agenda, and it was pretty far from innocent.

[thestoatyone]

I'm with RR on the no harm no foul line. Does seem a bit lazy though...

[BlueRose]

More than just lazy; it's deliberate. There were stock photos of veggie burgers, why not use them? Why not give the istock the appropriate credit as they should've done legally? And what about the employees who complained, offered alternatives, and were ultimately silenced?

[Twoism]

So what if they did it to save money. It's not just deceptive, it's a kick in the teeth for their vegan subscribers. The thought of salivating over a recipe picture (as you do) and then being told it's actually meat is just really messed up. The financial constriants response is a poor excuse, the way they apparently deleted peoples comments shows the lack of respect they have for their readers. They should have put a disclaimer next to the images or not bothered at all.

I think it's completely unfair to say people have double standards for being outraged at this while also supporting Jamie Oliver's food revolution. In an overwhelmingly non-vegan world there is nothing wrong with encouraging healthier diets for children, even if it includes animal food. It is the deception which has angered people. At least jamie oliver is completely open with his message.

[beforewisdom]

I'm with RR on the no harm no foul line.

The story was posted on the NPR ( National Public Radio ) web site, a very prominent news outlet in the United States. Carnists will be making slams and jokes for years to come i.e. " -- why should I eat vegan? Their food is crap, even their own magazine uses pictures of meat and milk"

The news also comes on top of rumors of a number of prominent activists being cheating vegans. Not the best news for an already unforgiving and cynical AR/vegan community.

[beforewisdom]

More than just lazy; it's deliberate. There were stock photos of veggie burgers, why not use them? Why not give the istock the appropriate credit as they should've done legally? And what about the employees who complained, offered alternatives, and were ultimately silenced?

THIS

Amateur food bloggers put up beautiful pictures of what they cook every day. They use cameras that cost less than $300. If VegNews asked for help they could have gotten professionals volunteering their services in exchange for some notoriety and a small fee. It wasn't about costs.

I got the feeling from comments from ex-employees on their site that they were stuck on being a mainstream publication and having an image of being polished and doing things the way other magazines do them, using stock photos instead of appealing to the community for help.

[etherspin]

At the very least , every front cover should look sensational and be vegan food , for the rest why not have a disclaimer that they are real photos of real food, not setup up stuff but real vegan food. This is honestly a joke , there are more vegan food blogs out there than I could list in a day and most of them have as many recipes in a month as this magazine does but without profit. I have pictures of my own food looking great and I am not a photographer and not a professional cook either .. a print publication should have a half decent photographer on board and /or someone who has a bit of basic photoshop knowledge .... not for shopping out the bones on a set of ribs either!
This does really make veganism look stupid.

[runrevolt]

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2011/04/14/a-wo ... l-of-2011/

The link above has the best response I've seen yet.

As to other comments...

The thing is..everyone keeps saying, "there are vegan bloggers with photos everywhere", "they should have a professional photographer and chef on staff", but the reality is it's NOT THAT SIMPLE. It is incredibly costly to have someone on staff taking magazine quality photos, but beyond that you have to deal with MAKING something everytime you need a photo, which could be how many meals each magazine? It's both ineffective in terms of cost and time, especially for a magazine with a full time staff of 5. And as far as taking images off the web or using bloggers photos, it's also NOT THAT SIMPLE. There is so much liability involved in using others images/artwork and for each image they need permission, signed contracts, etc. etc. Again, more inefficient waste of time and money.

In a perfect world they could always have stunning vegan food photographs and I truly believe they would like to work towards that, but in the meantime they have to make do.

I still find it funny that I know of other vegan food product packaging photos that are NOT vegan and no one cares, because no one knows. And the point is, no animals are getting hurt in the process.

As far as putting a disclaimer in their magazine, you KNOW the veganer-than-thou types would have the exact same field day they are having now if Veg News did so.

Finally, there are different ways this situation could have been handled on both sides, but I think this shows the problematic nature of bloggers getting all "investigative" and sensational with their presentations. QuarryGirl made a HUGE deal out of this, basically setting up the framework to say that Veg News are deceptive, liars trying to subvert the intentions of the vegan community, forcing them to "Drool" over meat, instead of trying to understand exactly why they would make a decision like this and form a more balanced and rational response.

Ultimately, I think this will blow over, Veg News will make more efforts to source vegan images (which is good) and the magazine will continue being a strong influence in making veganism legitimate and practical. The worst, however, could be that if enough self-serving hype generates, subscription cancellations could sink the magazine. I truly hope this is not the case.

[beforewisdom]

My problem with the ecorazzi editorial and the attitude of VegNews is that they don't understand why people are appalled. They are writing off people who have a problem with what was done as argumentative hotheads indulging their emotions. I think there are people like that, but I don't think it fits most of the people involved. I think that response will be received as condescending and defensive, which will not help.

Either way, the message that this is not a cool thing for a vegan business to do got across. My wish is that it would have been a message of cooperative communication and not a message delivered by brute force, but communication can only happen when you have two parties willing to listen.

At this point into the incident I don't see much value in VegNews surviving. I think their credibility is fatally damaged. Large numbers of people will no longer believe what they have to say, which puts an end to the magazines effectiveness as an advocacy tool for animals.

[xrodolfox]

I occasionally buy VegNews. I generally like the magazine.

Finding out some of their photos are really lies, well, that breaks the very heart of journalistic trust. I lost some of my trust with VegNews.

Now, of course this issues isn't that big of a deal. If I had a subscription, I wouldn't cancel. I'll still read the magazine. But I no longer trust it. If VegNews had told readers thats what they did, or simply found another less deceitful method of producing photos, then that'd be something different. They'd have my full trust.

I am not up at arms, but they have lost my trust for the time being.

[BlueRose]

The stock photo place they used HAD vegan images. They just didn't use them. They WANTED to use meat to make it look like vegan food looked just like meat, they silenced people who questioned it, and they used those photos ILLEGALLY--they're supposed to give credit and they didn't. I smell a lawsuit forthcoming...

[runrevolt]

Beforewisdom - There is A LOT of value in Veg News surviving, because primarily, this argument is going to be confined to the already converted vegan communities. The people who pick this magazine up off the rack at Whole Foods will never hear of this, probably, and absorb the information and inspiration without bias. I'm still think it would be terrible if the magazine goes under....the animals need all the help they can get.

Rodolfo - I completely understand this. It is awkward not knowing if something is vegan or not....but I guess, I also don't care. I'm not convinced this decision affects the content of their magazine and I don't feel like I'll be dissuaded from trying recipes or eating vegan food because of it.

BlueRose - Those are some pretty strong accusations. Is that just what you feel or do you have some evidence to back this up? If not, it's only serving to continue this divisive argumentation. Also, when you buy iStock photos you are not legally required to give credit. I've bought iStock photos before.

[BlueRose]

BlueRose - Those are some pretty strong accusations. Is that just what you feel or do you have some evidence to back this up? If not, it's only serving to continue this divisive argumentation. Also, when you buy iStock photos you are not legally required to give credit. I've bought iStock photos before.

All you have to do is read the comments posted by former employees. I'm not talking based on "feelings". And go ahead and search in there for vegan and/or vegetarian burgers and pics. There are tons. Here's one: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-12562348-vegan-food-veggie-burger.php?st=aac8d91

And yes, they needed to provide credti. From the license: “you may not: use the Content for editorial purposes without including the following credit adjacent to the Content or in audio/visual production credits: ©iStockphoto.com/Artist’s Member Name”

But the real egg on their face is how they responded to others, tried to sweep it under the rug by deleting comments, and this non-apology response they had.

Just read the comments on the blog. I'm not serving to "continue this divisive argumentation", I'm making informed statements based on discussions with others. It pays to see more than just VegNews' side of the story.

[runrevolt]

I don't put full credit into the opinions of former employees...but I'm not saying they are invalid either.

I concede to your citing of iStock credit rights. Maybe I'm forgetting, but I might have bought them from a differnet stock site that did not require credit.

Believe me, I am looking at all sides of the story. Thanks for your corrections.