Yes, my thoughts exactly!

Bitch Sessio – I’m assuming your name was meant to be “bitch session.” Very clever.

You’re right. Not everyone knows the answer to everything… But part of being an adult means admitting when you don’t know the answer, and when you’ve messed up. If VegNews had straight away admitted to the stock photo thing (which they would have, if they legitimately thought it was a totally acceptable practice) I may still have been disappointed, but would I have been angry? No. I do understand why they did it, and how harsh the realties of publishing can be (and I stated so in this post). What I don’t understand is VegNews’ refusal to accept any blame for this incident, or to even acknowledge readers’ feelings as legitimate.

You asked if VegNews really deceived me. Well, yes. Of course they did. When they illustrate their recipes with images, they are tacitly implying that these images are a) of the recipe in question and b) vegan. They were neither. In what world is that not deceit? It’s a lie, plain and simple, and I bought it. You’ve set up a false dichotomy when you state that it must either be a lie or an “industry standard.” This is not the case. Ends do not always justify means. There were other, more ethical, and just as financially viable, options that VegNews chose not to explore. “Industry standard” is not good enough. It’s dangerous to argue that just because everyone else does something it must be morally right. This could be used to defend numerous heinous things… Plus, if it was really true, we wouldn’t be vegan, would we?

I earnestly believe that VegNews should apologise, because I also believe that owning up to mistakes (or at least the consequences of your actions) is something that any truly ethical person or business should be ready and willing to do. By taking the course of action that they did, VegNews have proved themselves to be profoundly unethical. I am prepared to offer forgiveness (as I expect most reasonable people are), but only if they actually want it.

Before this whole thing popped-up, I think VegNews was doing a great job of promoting veganism, and I hope they can learn from this mistake and get back to doing what they do best. However, the effect of having such a large vegan-friendly publication admit to using non-vegan foods has certainly been negative for veganism in the public eye. There are plenty of articles covering this story now from National Public Radio to the New York Times, and lots of them are taking the chance to suggest the idea that if such a prominent publication can not find great photos of vegan food, maybe it’s because vegan food is just plain bad.

I’m not looking for people to jump ship on a publication that has spent eleven years building itself up large enough to have the reach it has, I’m just hoping that VegNews will realize there are other options out there, and they come from the same people who have been helping the magazine get to where it is today.

Megan: thanks!

It’s laughable (in a very sad way) that they call themselves an ‘ethical vegan’ publication. They’ve become neither.

Further from this deception is the disrespect to the photographers themselves, who VegNews are contractually obligated to credit (from the stock photo companies), but didn’t (as this would lead a trail…) I would not be surprised if VegNews were to find themselves amidst a lawsuit or two.

I comment further on VegNewsGate (as Sarah Kramer has coined it) here:

http://veganvelo.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46

(PS – there’s a new vegan cycling website!