The VegNews Brouhaha

I don’t know about you, but I find the whole controversy surrounding VegNews’ use of non-vegan photos in their magazine to be pretty disturbing. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, here’s the deal in a nutshell. VegNews is a vegan magazine. Vegan. As in, no meat, no dairy. But it turns out the photos they use in their magazine are actually stock photos, often of meat or dairy products. For instance, in this article called “Vegan 101: Food”, which talks about how great vegan food is, the photo at the top is actually a beef burger. So when they post about vegan hot dogs, the photo is actually of a regular hot dog. (I considered saying pork hot dog or beef hot dog, but really don’t want to dwell on what is actually in a “regular” hot dog.)

VegNews was exposed yesterday on Quarrygirl’s blog, and of course the fit hit the shan. One could hear the collective jaw drop of foodies around the globe. VegNews responded, saying it would be cost prohibitive to take their own photos of vegan food, so they use stock photos even though they are sometimes actually meat. Here are my brief thoughts on the matter, of course from my own non-vegan perspective.

What you don’t know can still hurt you.

People often say what you don’t know can’t hurt you. I call bull. If your spouse is cheating and you don’t know, it still hurts you. If someone steals from you and you don’t know, it still hurts you. And guess what, if you are a vegan being duped into thinking the pictures in your magazine are not actually meat, it hurts you!  Veganism is challenging, and it’s something people choose because they feel very strongly about the treatment of animals. To purchase and display photos of meat and dairy in a magazine that stands so strongly against these things is just plain wrong.

It’s a tough economy.

Of course, things are more complicated than that. Could the magazine survive if it were forced to purchase only vegan stock photos? Or to hire a food photographer and publish their own photos? Could the magazine survive if it used fewer photos, or only photos that didn’t include any meat (i.e., salads!)?

I’m in business, and I know these are tough circumstances to face. Regardless, a business should not knowingly deceive its stakeholders. At the end of the day, you cannot publish photos in your magazine that are in fundamental contrast to your principles — and those of your readers — while playing them off as something else.

Recipe photos?

As a non-vegan, my biggest “huh???” moment with all this was that the photos the magazine printed alongside recipes were actually stock photos, not photos of the actual recipe. I’m sure that VegNews is not alone in this, but it honestly bugs the heck out of me. If you’re posting a recipe, and there is a photo next to the recipe, the photo should be of the finished product! One blogger pointed out that in the magazine, the photo next to a cream pie recipe is a stock photo, not of that recipe. That’s just absurd, deceptive, and beyond wrong.

What now, VegNews?

As someone who reads dozens of food blogs every day — and there are hundreds more that I don’t know about yet — it blows my mind that VegNews would claim there are not vegan photos available for their website. Have they ever checked out the vegan blogosphere? So many talented bloggers taking so many beautiful photos. Mama Pea? Averie? Those are two very popular bloggers who fill their websites every day with drool-inducing vegan photos. The list goes on and on and on.

So no, it’s not enough to simply say that it’s cost prohibitive to use vegan photos. You’re a vegan magazine. Photos of actual animal ribs with the bones photoshopped out is unaccpetable.

VegNews should have been honest. They should have let their readers know the challenge they had getting vegan photos. They could have held monthly photography contests. They could have created their own stock photo database from the thousands of gorgeous images available. They say they exhausted all options before resorting to stock photography.

I call bull.

I hope we’ll see VegNews make some immediate changes following their public pantsing yesterday. Just looking at the front page of the food section of their website today, you have to wonder, are those chunks of tofu or processed chicken? Is that a fish- or cream-based sauce? Reading through the comments, it’s obvious that people are angry. VegNews should have been honest and they weren’t. They should have stood up to their principles and they didn’t. What now, VegNews? I can’t wait to see.

This entry was posted in controversy, eat, omg, vegan, vegnews. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to The VegNews Brouhaha

  1. Cherry Lane says:

    The first Merf-Rant! (of many to come, I hope) Love it!

  2. Wow. I had seen something alluding this this on Twitter yesterday, but didn't really know what was up. I just checked out the links to get filled in.
    Wow. I am not a VegNews subscriber, nor am I a vegan… and even I'm disappointed. I'm with you, I definitely call bull on not being able to obtain/afford vegan photographs. Let alone photographs of the actual dish for the recipe in question (that is insane!). I always assume that the photo next to a recipe in a magazine is of that ACTUAL dish. Silly me?

    I would definitely be pissed if I were a vegan subscriber to VegNews.


  3. I've heard quite a bit about this today! I'm not a vegan and not personally offended by the news per say, but I do agree – a picture with a recipe should be a picture of that recipe! Or at least the real source should be noted…

  4. LauraJayne says:

    I was out of the loop yesterday, and this is the first I'm reading about this – and honestly, I'm really bummed. VegNews is a magazine that I read regularly, and it is more expensive than my other reads. I usually feel good about shelling out the additional dough because I feel like I am supporting an organization with values that I agree with (even though I am not Vegan). I'm just disapointed and definitely want to find out more about this!

  5. Wow, that's pretty crazy! I'm glad we're finally learning the truth, but it makes me wonder how many other magazines use stock photos.

  6. among my first thoughts after reading their response? “every” vegan employee was in on the decision? on this I call bull. most vegans are very adamant, and even the ones that are “okay” with this? wouldn't do it.
    also – tough economy. yeah. I've run businesses before, but Do Not Cut Corners. Ever. if this is is actually your reasoning, what will you NOT do?? that kind of justification can lead to all kinds of anything unsavory.

  7. Meri says:

    Maybe I'm an idiot, but I'm sort of stuck on how the mag could get away with using meat, I mean… it usually looks pretty meaty to me. Why bother? And isn't photoshop (the work, anyway) pretty darn expensive also?

  8. This whole thing is shocking to me. I hate the message that they're sending: in order to be pretty, it's best to start with meat. Gross. And as I read on someone else's blog…does anyone actually test the recipes? Are they just printing random recipes with completely unrelated photos? My mind is officially boggled.

  9. I've heard about this and then read the article and find the whole story just shameful. Shame shame shame! Photoshopping a thing to make it look better is one thing (and not okay but commonly done and somewhat accepted), but turning something into something completely different is betrayal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s