Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Sarah the Hussy ([info]braisinhussy) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2011-04-15 08:57:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:food, veganism, vegans

VegNews pisses off vegans everywhere
Thanks to a mouse at [info]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)


[info]chibikaijuu
2011-04-17 06:09 am UTC (link)
I'm pretty sure in the US, if you are advertizing a food product, the product itself has to be real.

That doesn't mean that anything else in the shot does, though, or that it can't be heavily altered, just at some point, it has to have actually been the product being advertized.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]vzg
2011-04-18 03:21 am UTC (link)
Maybe in certain parts of the US, but I'm fairly certain that most images of burgers from big name chains you see on television and in commercials aren't real. Or, if they are, there are a whole lot of non-food products plastered on them. I've never seen a burger from a fast food place that looks anything like the ads.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]chibikaijuu
2011-04-18 04:09 am UTC (link)
The burgers have to be real, I'm fairly certain, but they can then be glued and shellacked and painted and propped up and sprayed with whateverthefuck to make them look prettier.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]lady_ganesh
2011-04-19 02:34 am UTC (link)
Yeah, that's how I remember it too.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map