wordmpd
by Michael Parrish DuDell
Categories: .

Earlier this afternoon, my colleague Michael d’Estries posted a story that is slowly but surely shaking up the vegetarian world. Last night, QuarryGirl.com revealed that VegNews – the nation’s leading vegetarian magazine — has, on occasion, used nonvegan stock photography alongside vegan recipes on both their website and in their magazine. While, of course, one might suspect a handful of negative reactions from this revelation, the mass hysteria that has occurred throughout the vegetarian community in the last 24 hours is nothing but flagrantly obscene.

At first glance, it’s understandable why some people might find this idea strange. Why would a vegan magazine use nonvegan images? It isn’t, however, until one examines the issue more thoroughly that the line begins to blur.

As a privately owned publication with no outside funding, VegNews has done the near impossible by lasting 11 years and securing prime real estate in bookstores across the country. Currently, the popular magazine reaches over 1 million readers each month, including herbivores and omnivores alike. As VegNews points out in a letter on their site, occasionally using nonvegan stock photography is sometimes the only fiscally possible way to procure high-quality magazine-style images. Sure, it’s not ideal, but it’s not criminal either.

While some online critics have suggested VegNews source user-submitted photos, anybody who’s ever worked in publishing knows this suggestion isn’t logistically possible. With time-sensitive deadlines, detailed specs, and other provisions to consider, sourcing photos would be more trouble than it’s worth. Ideally, VegNews would have an in-house photographer, but being an independently owned company on a conservative budget prohibits that option. These are only some of the challenges the outspoken naysayers don’t seem to be considering.

Instead of discussing the situation with the staff of VegNews in a thoughtful way (as opposed to leaving a comment on their website) or gathering enough information to fully understand the issue, the activist who broke the story chose to wage war, proudly canceling her subscription and enabling others to do the same. What’s more, a small handful of highly-regarded bloggers have jumped on board to reprimand and call into question the magazine’s editorial integrity. And this is where these particular activists are getting it dead wrong.

If the goal of the whole game is to celebrate and promote a vegan lifestyle, how does relentlessly bashing an organization that has spent 11 years championing our shared mission make any sense at all? That’s an easy answer: it doesn’t. What it does do is create the appearance of infighting that not only confirms but exacerbates the common stereotype that vegans are frustratingly rigid and ruthlessly pugnacious. I’d argue, moreover, that the activist who spends his time didactically preaching such a silly message has lost focus entirely. The most effective advocates know that speaking up for a cause is not about one’s own delicate sensibilities but about the larger picture as a whole — in other words, the goal of the fight; not simply “the fight.”

Like all senseless flailing, this momentary hysteria will eventually die down and the hotheaded shouters will no doubt find something else as equally unimportant to scream about. The sad reality is that in the wake of this nonissue issue, VegNews will probably suffer temporary losses. And that, my friends, is a real honest-to-goodness shame.

When activists ask what advice I can share, I always say the same thing: when advocating for any cause, remember that very often strategy is more important than emotion. It’s not always an easy thing to hear, but it’s often the truth. Today we will have wasted thousands of collective hours ranting and raving over a handful of stock photos when we could be focusing on the issues that truly matter. How totally and completely silly.

If a picture is worth 1,000 words, I shudder at how many more must be shed before this silly conflict is finally put to rest.

Full Disclosure: I have contributed to VegNews Magazine in the past, and would happily contribute again. All opinions expressed in this column are mine and mine alone.

Michael Parrish DuDell has been a senior editor at Ecorazzi.com since 2007. He is currently the managing editor of The Domino Project – a new publishing company started by Seth Godin and powered by Amazon.com. You can follow Michael on Twitter, find him on Facebook, or email him at mparrishdudell@gmail.com.


Categories: .
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cheryl-llebrand/795961444 Cheryl Ållebrand

    What if the images they wanted us to salivate over were of cut up humans? What if humans were murdered to create images that earned money by being sold to VegNews? Would you still feel the same — that they were just doing the fiscally responsible thing?

    Rather poorer quality photography or run the recipe without pictures. For those of us who believe meat is murder, this disguised splatter food porn is not okay. Why should that be so surprising to you?

    False advertising. While I appreciate the recipes and many things they have done, VegNews has lost credibility in my eyes and I feel sick to my stomach.

    • fanya

      It’s a non-argument agree 100% with MPD. these types of arguments are exactly why veganism will stay on the fringe. If every vegan really believed in truth in advertising they be living a much emptier life. Granted a much purer life–but much emptier living via the absolute truth and no compromise. Start with your everyday items how many do you research to see if they use animal products. You would be beyond shocked.

      To Vegnews: I wouldn’t sweat this situation too much. Many will not only replace those that have left, but some of those that left will come back to the fold wagging their tails behind them. I would set up some internships with photography students to keep things current.

      Choose your battles wisely Cheryl and Company.

  • Stephon Agave

    @Michael Dudell;

    This is the best quote I have seen in this issue summing up why people are upset:


    “So do they explain WHY I want to buy a vegan magazine to look at meat?

    Yes- because they are packaging veganism in an appealing way!”

  • Stephon Agave

    This is one of the best quotes about the issue I have read:

    “So do they explain WHY I want to buy a vegan magazine to look at meat? Yes- because they are packaging veganism in an appealing way!”

  • Stephanie

    Although, much out the outrage has been a bit hysterical, it is more than reasonable that vegans want to open their vegan lifestyle magazine and not see pictures of corpses. It is not hysterical for me to upset by the fact that I drooled over what I thought were vegan riblets but were actually pictures of a mutilated and abused pig served as food.

    Veg News has been very dismissive of these concerns and has failed to take responsibility of the intentional cover up of using non vegan photos, failed to apologize for using these photos, and failed to say the would STOP using those photos. Veg News use of non vegan stock photography has spread to the NYTimes and other publications and has now become an international embarrassment for vegans by reinforcing the false notion that vegan food is not good.

    When I found out this upsetting news, I did not grab my pitchfork but instead presumed that Veg News would be respectful of their readers and apologize and change their policy. That was all I needed to move on and continue to read the otherwise fabulous publication. Unfortunately, this has not happened. I am waiting for Veg New to issue an apology and to agree not to use pictures of dead animals in their magazine.

    • Don

      They don’t care. All they care about is money. Stop buying their magazine and boycott future sponsors. This is sick.

  • http://beforewisdom.com beforewisdom

    Michael Parrish DuDell;

    I’m offended by your response.

    I’ve seen many instances of hot headed devotees of a cause indulging their emotions at the expense of their cause. I don’t think this is the case with the majority of people who have a problem with what VegNews did. The mission of VegNews is to package veganism in an appealing way. There is something legitimately flawed in doing that by using pictures of meat. That is what makes using stock photos in this situation different from the standard practice of other magazines using stock photos in *other*, different, situations.

    I thought you point about using community contributed pictures being more problematic than most people are aware of was an interesting one. I had a problem with your delivery of that point. Quite frankly, it came off as condescending. “Silly upset whiny internet people, in the big grown up world of professional journalists there are many important details that you don’t know anything about as to why your quaint idea could not work.”.

    You and the management of VegNews are out of touch with your readership.

    I’m offended by the condescending tone of your post, the shooting of the messenger ( QuarryGirl ) and painting everyone who is upset about this issue in a negative light.

    I am removing ecorazzi from my RSS reader.

    • Don

      Choice words. Bravo.

    • http://www.herwinsvegancafe.com herwin

      Using photo’s from the veg community problematic ? Japan’s glossy high quality veggie mag Veggie Steady Go, available in all major bookshops around Japan, does it all the time, they actually ask and involve ordinary veggie people and use their “non profesional” photographs, and as far as i know, for free, but with credentials of course.

      So no, Vegnews, it’s not “Industry Standard” and it can be done, and it IS done, with excellent results.

      Other point, i just took one issue of VN and counted a whopping 34 pages of adds, so please don’t lets pretend that VN is an idealistic mag made in the garage with money earned from washing the neighbours car, because it’s not, it has (had) thousands of subscribers and many advertisers and many fans who did buy the mag, in short it was a profesional mag without enough income.

    • lisa

      i agree. the condescending attitude of MPD is arrogant, off putting and insulting to his many readers.

      MPD could have easily expressed his support of VegNews without being totally dismissive and disrespectful for others that may not agree. Not very tuned into your readership I’d say.

    • lisa

      MPD- What a dismissive, condescending and arrogant response to much of your reader base. It seems that VN is not alone in being out of touch with their readership.

  • Bridget

    How dare you blame the whistle blower!

    This is all about the philosophy of being vegan. If you are a vegan because you are diametrically opposed to using animals as sustenance and you find out that your vegan magazine uses photos of non-vegan food, it is of course unacceptable.

    Placing a standard disclaimer in the magazine explaining the lack of, and expense of, vegan food photos would have been honest. Hiding it proves, in my mind, they knew vegans would NOT be happy. I think that there were many options the magazine could have gone with, but they chose deception.

  • fanya

    If you know anything about food styling this is done all the time.

  • Don

    Slack. Very, very slack and very, very greedy. I have doubts they have a million people reading this magazine. And 11 years in the biz and they don’t have the managerial skills to provide an authentic photo? Really? Given their response I can only hope the rag dies and a more honest and creditable magazine with ethics surfaces. There’s plenty of room and a big audience–especially these days. As for this vegan, I’ll be watching carefully who advertises there. They’ve done everyone involved in the movement a huge disservice.

  • Katherine

    Thank you so much for this reasoned response to an absurd situation. This is the sort of thing that makes me embarrassed to be vegan! They’re totally making fun of us over at the New York Times, just because of this hullabaloo. I can’t believe people are so upset about this.

  • myer

    Are people really just realizing that VegNews uses stock images (of non-veg foods) now?

    This has been comically obvious for as long as I have been paying attention. I’m not offended by it, I think it’s a bit stupid, but just sort of accept it as the “nature of the beast” so to speak.

    I don’t think you should show a hamburger and talk about veggie burgers, but is it really something to be outraged about? To me its just one of many common inconsistencies in the veg world.

    It is also very common with other veg projects. I have noticed dozens of vegan establishments use stock photos (of non-veg food) in their advertisements, menus and other promotional materials.

    Seriously, it’s a bit absurd but is it really something to wage a serious campaign over?

    People need to get over this and focus their energy on bigger issues.

  • EB

    Thank you for this, Michael. I completely agree. QG made her ego a priority and has set the vegan movement back. She should be the one apologizing.

  • ddb

    OK, so you promote veganism, a lifestyle in which animals are not exploited for the appetites, convenience or greed of humans. Then you show me pictures of the great things I can make/buy/eat as a vegan. But the pictures you display are not actually representations of that lifestyle. And then you argue, “Get over it. We had to use images of food that was prepared by exploiting animals. It would have been inconvenient to follow the rules. It would have cut into our funds. It would not be as appetizing.” See the problem?