- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 64,138,984
Israel's biggest union announces "historic" strike as Prime Minister Netanyahu faces intense pressure over judicialâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…Oc
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 64,138,984
FDIC says First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company will purchase the assets of Silicon Valley Bank cnn.it/3LT1meo
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 64,138,984
Update: The City of Philadelphia says it is now confident tap water from the Baxter Drinking Water Treatment Plantâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…qG
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 64,138,984
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fires his defense minister after Yoav Gallant's call for a pause on the jâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…hF
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 64,138,984
Philadelphia advised residents to drink bottled water "out of caution" after a chemical spill in the Delaware River. cnn.it/3TIuVkV
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 64,138,984
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Saturday that he has been released from an inpatient physical therapy fâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…Nu
- @cnnbrk
- Followers: 64,138,984
Russia plans to station tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine's neighbor Belarus, says Putin, further stoking tensionâ€twitter.com/i/web/status/1…BO
CNN POLITICS ON FACEBOOK » | CNN POLITICS ON TWITTER »
Vegan magazine in a stew over meaty stock photos
Many salivate over the mere image of a juicy hamburger or a glistening rack of ribs, but vegetarians aren't usually among them.
But apparently, that's what the readers of VegNews, the nation's leading vegan magazine, have been doing for years without their knowledge.
With the help of an anonymous reader tip, the author of the vegan blog, quarrygirl.com, accused VegNews of using food images of meat in its magazine and website and passing them off as meatless. The allegation prompted the San Francisco-based publication to confess that it had, "from time to time," used stock images that turned out not to be totally animal-free.
"The pictures we've been drooling over for years are actually of MEAT!" she charged.
To support the allegation, the irate post compared pictures of recipes on VegNews.com with photographs from royalty-free image service, iStockphoto. One example shows an image of a "veganized" Brunswick stew recipe from VegNews.com and an identical image from iStockphoto titled "chicken breast-soup-stew-pepper."
"Get your barf bags ready!" quarrygirl.com editorialized.
In perhaps the most egregious example, the post compared pictures of "Vegan Spare Ribs" and "Barbecue Ribs Dinner," pointing out where the bones were apparently edited out of the image.
"Veg News has written tens (possibly hundreds) of articles extolling the virtues of a vegan lifestyle, while purchasing rock-bottom priced stock photos of MEAT, EGGS, DAIRY and other completely non-vegan things," the post said.
In response, the magazine admitted that "Yes, from time to time, after exhausting all options, we have resorted to using stock photography that may or may not be vegan," in a plaintive letter addressing the controversy.
The VegNews team pointed out in its defense that the magazine has been privately owned and independently funded for 12 years, no small feat in the expensive world of publishing.
"In an ideal world we would use custom-shot photography for every spread, but it is simply not financially feasible for VegNews at this time. In those rare times that we use an image that isn't vegan, our entire (vegan) staff weighs in on whether or not it's appropriate," the VegNews team said.
"It is industry standard to use stock photography in magazines - and, sadly, there are very few specifically vegan images offered by stock companies. In addition, it's exceedingly challenging to find non-stock imagery that meets the standard necessary for publication. We would love nothing more than to use only vegan photography shot by vegan photographers, and we hope to be there soon."
The controversy set off intense debate as to whether VegNews' actions can ever be justified, with many prominent voices in the vegan world vowing to cancel their subscriptions to the magazine and ban the site.
But others came to VegNews' defense.
"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," wrote Michael Parrish DuDell, senior editor of Ecorazzi.com, a self-described  "green gossip blog."
"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."
Another prominent vegan blogger said the end justifies the means and urged readers to continue supporting VegNews.
"All that really matters is that the reader associates the image with vegan food in a positive way, ultimately leading them to support vegan things," wrote Kayla, the blogger behind Babe in Soyland.
"Hurting VegNews over this would be sad and would mean the loss of an important resource and a way for vegans to reach out to their own kind as well as people who are NOT vegan but interested in veganism...It would be an unfortunate take-down of one of the vegan community’s greatest accomplishments by their own people and I just don’t think that’s what being vegan should be about."
But in this wired world, where action and reaction is instant, the kerfuffle has already sparked discussion of solutions.
"A good day to draw attention to vegan food photographers: @susanffvk @tofu666 @bittersweet_ @ohsheglows and I'm ok, too," tweeted Isa Chandra, a best-selling vegan cookbook author.
"Let's take a positive spin on the @VegNews photo controversy: create a vegan stock site! I would submit in a heartbeat. Problem-solved?" tweeted artsparrow.
What do you think? Leave your comment below.
On Twitter
On Twitter
@cnnbrk on Twitter
Shut-up and who cares. You didn't eat them so pss off.
Yet MORE jobs liberals put at-risk.
Lol. Silly vegans.
It is never OK for journalism to lie. The photos were lies. Period.
The rest of these comments are off-topic, and depressing, examples of how quickly people seize a cheap opportunity to hate each other. Which, incidentally, is why it's so easy for media to get away with lying; people embrace anything that feeds their prejudices.
This magazine is hardly "journalism", any more than a cook book is.
A bigger problem is that it's clear this magazine is endorsing these foods and recipes...while not actually have ever tested them. If they had, they could take pictures of the dish. False advertising and unethical? Yes, I think so.
Suddenly the food in their magazine looks really appetizing.
I'm trying to figure out why I clicked this link. Hmmmm?
Geez, how long do people really spend undoing all those panty knots?
BTW, for those of you who know nothing about animal classification, humans are primates, not carnivores. Primates are omnivores.
I got some meat on a stick!
3 different kinds
yummy, anybody want BBQ, all this talk is making me hungry
Our Magazine Nutricula "The Science of Longevity Journal" uses stock photos also, they are quality work and reflects our editorial just fine. Take a look this month's Cancer Issue. http://www.nutricula-u.com
Children children. Simmer down. All this juvenile bickering!
First, humans are OMNIVORES, not carnivores. And unlike true carnivores, such cats, we don't require meat to survive, we just require the correct blend of nutrients, and eating meat makes that easier to achieve. Give a cat all plant products, and specifically no taurine from meat, and they will eventually get sick and die.
Food articles should be illustrated with pictures of the recipes given, so we can see if they LOOK tasty. Stock photos of some OTHER food doesn't tell us anything and are, in my opinion, offensive for that reason, not just because they include some specific forbidden ingredient. THAT is the deception I am bothered by. If they are offering recipes, somebody should cook the food to see that the recipe is indeed worth writing about, then somebody should take a picture. Food bloggers all over the internet do a lovely job with that and manage nicely without an in-house professional photographer.
Don't see any many vegans posting on this one. Most everyone is devouring other people. I think that makes most of you cannibals. Anyone agree?
i used to work at a restaurant and many cooks and waiters as jokes put meat products into every order that the people were specific about no meat products...........your eating meat and just dont know it....
Jokes on you
That's why I rarely eat at restaurants.
I used to work in a pharmacy...we'd punch holes with a pin in the condoms, then seal the box back.
Then I got a job in a hospital......maybe the next jokes on You, Ed.
I don't think it's unhealthy to eat a balanced diet of veggies and meat. And anyone with a brain knows to eat more vegetables than meat. I think the word is moderation. Some meat with more vegetables seems to be a balance for me, and less red meat than other types. I think some folks don't understand the idea of a little common sense when they eat.