Entry tags:

VegNews pisses off vegans everywhere
Thanks to a mouse at wank_report for this!

VegNews is "an award-winning vegan magazine and website packed with recipes, travel, news, food, reviews, and so much more."

"So much more" apparently means stock photos of meat used to illustrate vegan recipes. Comments are posted, comments are deleted, and users are banned when they point out that using photos of meat (some of them poorly photoshopped to remove bones) seems contrary to the tenets of the magazine.

“Thank you for your interest in VegNews. However, your inappropriate and mean-spirited commenting has violated the policy of VegNews, and we have and will continue to remove any future comments. Please know that we welcome constructive criticism from all viewpoints, and rarely unpublish comments from readers. Should you have any constructive feedback, feel free to email me directly. I’d love to hear from you.”

People are extremely not happy. (But their wanking is done in the most non-violent, humane way possible.)

VegNews posts a non-apology. Surprise, surprise, it doesn't go over well.

(Gothamist's closing line about this debacle is priceless: "Should VegNews change its name to CarnNews, was their apology enough, or is this all just much tofu about nothing?")

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

	emily_goddess 2011-04-16 10:50 pm UTC (link)
	Because those stock photos were cheap? I'm kinda on the magazine's side on that point (although their subsequent comment deletion and nonpology were both hilariously wanky). (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	lied_ohne_worte 2011-04-17 07:23 am UTC (link)
	Cheap or not - if I was a reader of that magazine, I wouldn't be upset at them displaying meat, but rather at them not actually displaying an image of the finished recipe I am supposed to use. I hate it when you look at your resulting dish and wonder how on earth they made it to look like the photo. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	emily_goddess 2011-04-17 01:36 pm UTC (link)
	That is a really good point. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	vzg 2011-04-18 03:15 am UTC (link)
	This is true, although I think the only issue they've run into is that they're making it stupidly obvious. I'd be hard-pressed to believe any food magazine didn't use some stock images — which is at least better than the forms of advertising in which advertisers are creating all the images themselves and the food is still not authentic/outright fake. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	lady_ganesh 2011-04-19 02:31 am UTC (link)
	Yeah, that's the part that's baffling me. If it was 'ten ways to make mashed potatoes' with a stock image, fine. But 'cook these ribs,' when the recipe is for fake ribs and the pic is of real ribs...wtf? (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -