The most recent example of that old adage "with friends like this, who needs enemies" has come in the form of what I would have called a silly controversy, except that the controversy has had a measurable negative impact.
You may have heard about a "scandal" that rocked the vegan community this past week when it was reported that VegNews Magazine was using stock photos with actual meat to represent some of its vegan recipes. The story spread across the Internet and social media sites like a California wildfire. The fine folks behind VegNews, who have always been highly regarded in veg circles (with good reason; theirs is a labor of love), were blindsided.
The vegan movement has made great strides forward in recent years, with wonderful books by Rory Freedman, Kathy Freston, Tal Ronnen, Alicia Silverstone, and currently Wayne Pacelle all hitting the New York Times bestseller list. In just the last few months Oprah, Ellen DeGeneres, and Martha Stewart have all devoted episodes of their shows to veganism, and it seems every week the mainstream media reports on someone who has become vegan or is flirting with it, from President Bill Clinton to business mogul Steve Wynn to sports stars like Prince Fielder to, in the "most unlikely vegan" category, Mike Tyson.
Fortunately, many rational and seasoned minds came to VegNews' defense, including Ecorazzi Senior Editor Michael Parrish Dudell who blogged, "the mass hysteria that has occurred throughout the vegetarian community ... is nothing but flagrantly obscene."
Matt Ball, co-founder of Vegan Outreach, also put the matter of priorities into perspective in his blog.
I contacted VegNews publisher Joseph Connelly after hearing him interviewed on NPR's "All Things Considered" and reading about what I had previously assumed was a small and silly online kerfuffle in the New York Times.
Here's what he told me:
"Everyone at VegNews is in shock over what transpired. A very small number of photos somehow morphed into a much larger issue. What hurt most, I think, is that we were never contacted about this except for one anonymous exchange on our website that appeared to be from a troll and was therefore deleted, as is our policy. The blogger did not call or email, did not attempt to contact us in any way, did not seriously attempt to get both sides of the story."
Connelly's reflection raises a few issues for me:
1) Where is the integrity in attacking VegNews without getting their side of the story? If we do think they've done something wrong, why not contact them privately?
2) Why (on earth) would we waste precious time and resources publicly attacking VegNews at all; haven't they earned the benefit of quite a few doubts with their nonstop excellent focus on the full range of arguments for veganism?
3) Most critically: Veganism is supposed to be about reducing suffering. How does attacking VegNews accomplish anything good? I can see how it harms animals (clearly), but what other than self-righteous self-satisfaction comes from attacking them?
VegNews has thrived as an independent magazine during a down economy and while masses of people migrate toward electronic media. The magazine has won numerous industry awards, and has given veganism both mainstream exposure and legitimacy like no other magazine in history. It operates in an industry that spends tens of thousands of dollars on photo shoots, where the use of stock photography is a common practice, and where the quality of images required for print is nearly impossible for the average individual to understand. It competes on the newsstand against thousands of other magazine titles, yet is the singular mainstream voice for a vegan lifestyle--and an incredibly effective one.
VegNews apologized in this letter, which was posted on its website a few days after the news broke, yet the castigation continued (hell hath no fury like a vegan scorned, apparently), multiplying the negative effect of what was already misplaced wrath.
And in the "truth is stranger than fiction" department, it turned out that the photograph of a burger that was purportedly meat (the photo that launched the controversy), from this VegNews.com article "Vegan 101," is actually a vegan pattie.
The staff and publishers of VegNews have shown class and integrity throughout this whole absurd affair, even though, according to Connelly, "Nearly everything else that has been said, such as that we censor legitimate comments, or that we had staff dissension over the use of symbolic images, is simply not true. Still, our readers have spoken, we've apologized, and have changed our photo policy moving forward."
To not support VegNews is counter-productive if you care about animal suffering. It's time to put this issue behind us and focus on areas where animals are suffering.
And if you didn't previous subscribe to VegNews, show them some love by visiting their Web site and signing up. If you already subscribe, buy a friend a gift subscription.
Follow Bruce Friedrich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/brucegfriedrich
I think there are two points of contradiction in Bruce's opinion. The first is that if VegNews truly did nothing wrong, than why be concerned that vegans are still talking about it, if it is on the up-and-up? The second point of contradiction is that by publishing this article after VegNews announced its policy change, the article is keeping the kind of discussion they don't want continuing.
Lastly, I feel that Bruce, the editor of Ecorazzi and a few others simply do not understand where the people who had a problem with VegNews were coming from. To that end I think Colleen Patrick-Goudreau articulated that position the best. If you feel as these men do please read her short essay before you dismiss the people who had a problem as hot heads.
http://tinyurl.com/4ytde67
Mea culpa.
Bruce
They have apologized now and most people have moved on. Everyone, it seems, but you and VegNews.
If they don't think they are wrong why did they apologize? This interview makes me think that the apology was not at all sincere. Why even write this if you truly don't want any more time wasted? The issue should have been put to bed with the apology, but it is not the critics dragging it out, it is articles like this.
Perhaps it is was a non-issue to you, but it is a legitimate issue for people that would like vegan cuisine to be taken seriously. If I had written a recipe for vegan tacos and a pic of chicken tacos was used on the cover I would be plenty upset. That is exactly what happened to at least one contributor. This was not "symbolic" imagery, it was a cover photo. There is no defense for that.
I was pleased that they apologized and I looked forward to photos of vegan recipes, now I am not so sure. Where exactly do they stand on the issue?
It's been interesting to me, how strongly people feel, on both sides. You are absolutely certain that you're right (and you certainly have more credibility on recipe photos than most people), even as others with equal credibility disagree with equal vehemence.
Anyway, I agree that my timing sucked. I was traveling when the controversy broke, and initially, I didn't think it would amount to much, so I ignored it. Once I had a moment to weigh in, I asked the key people who were asking me to respond if they thought I should still write, and they all said yes--no equivocation. So I did.
I now better understand your point of view, though I still think that 1) if we have a forum, we should use it to bash animal abusers, not people who are trying to do good; and 2) we REALLY need to try to give the benefit of the doubt to people who are on our side--the movement is too small for us to be vilifying one another.
Thanks for your comments, and for your excellent work.
Bruce
You haven't upset me, but I find it disappointing that you are writing this because you were asked to by your friend, the publisher of the magazine. That pretty much answers my question as to where VegNews stands.
If vegans aren't allowed to demand integrity and honesty in their own community without being called hysterical and worse, then we don't have a community, we have a cult. If we all followed this model then it wouldn't matter how we conduct ourselves, just that we were vegan. No thanks.
Did you give Quarrygirl the benefit of the doubt, or only VegNews deserves that? How do you know all of your facts are even correct, because your friend said they were?
I thought that VegNews could turn this around and make it a great situation for themselves. Instead they are resorting to pettiness and even bullying. Pull some strings with your pal at HuffPo to try to get in some last licks even though, you know, you apologized and it's over? Either you are sorry or you are not. Don't do us any favors by changing a business practice you believe in.
You said "You are absolutely certain that you're right (and you certainly have more credibility on recipe photos than most people), even as others with equal credibility disagree with equal vehemence. "
Please tell me what legitimate publishing source has defended this practice. If any credible magazine has swooped in to VegNews' defense, I must have missed it.
So the VegNews "Editor At Large" is attacking Erik Marcus on another site with a ton of spurious nonsense, because Markus had the audacity to weigh in early on, and to resign from VegNews Advisory Board. QuarryGirl is getting hate mail based on the nonsense Joe is quoted as saying in this article -- i.e., that he was somehow a victim and treated unfairly by her. How dare he. He did the crime, not QG.
Joe is not a victim, he's the villain. But he's telling Bruce and others he was a victim and wasn't given a chance. His surrogates are out working the "poor Joe, you're being mean to him!" angle.
210,000 subscribers, Connelly per NYT. That would be over $4 million in subscriptions alone, not to mention a ton in ad sales. First it was "we can't afford photographers," now Joe's opening a vegan stock photo business. Wow! And claiming a million monthly visitors on his website to the NYT = provably false. And anyone is still believing VegNews anymore? VegLies is more like it.
Your organization seems to have no problem continuing to attack Michael Vick even after he has ceased his dogfighting operation and served his prison time.
http://www.mercyforanimals.org/calves/
The dumb use of stock photos is nothing - what these poor dairy cows have gone thru and are going thru should be in everyone's faces.... Thanks again!
Bruce
I agree with much of your post, but think it's incomplete in at least a couple of places. I spoke with VegNews editor Colleen Holland today, and made an honest attempt to contact them before running with the story.
First, there was a deception of sorts here. For example, one picture caption read, "Here at the VNHQ, we devour these savory, sauce-covered ribs as often as possible." But "these" savory, sauce-covered ribs were meat from a dead animal. The caption was dishonest, and led readers to the wrong conclusion. Even Ms. Holland conceded to me that she "can see why it looks bad."
Second, Ms. Holland said no one at VegNews had ever done any sort of crisis training; nor did they reach out to any outside PR pros after the story broke. Instead of making them victims, please realize they did have some power here - by consulting experts, they could have responded quicker and more effectively.
None of this is to say that people at VegNews are bad people. My impression of Ms. Holland is quite the opposite - she seems genuine and well-intentioned. But even genuine and well-intentioned people can suffer from missteps, as the folks at VegNews did in this case.
My complete post about this incident is here: http://www.mrmediatraining.com/index.php/2011/04/21/vegan-mag-deceptively-tempts-readers-with-meat/
Brad Phillips
Author, Mr. Media Training Blog
What did VegNews learn from this crisis? “You HAVE to get an outside perspective,” Colleen said.
Um, how about don't deceive people in the first place, and then you don't need PR spinners and "crisis training" experts? If you don't lie to your readers, and have an instinct to cover it up and try to bully people who ask you about it, you won't have these problems. It's kind of simple.
It's called being a stand up person, which I'm sorry to say the guy running VegNews is not. His natural arrogance took over and only after a few days of an unrelenting barrage of disgust from the vegan community, did he realize his blow-off-the-critics strategy wasn't going to work and he had to act contrite.
Connelly in his NPR "apology" interview even took a swipe at QuarryGirl saying snidely that she "fancies herself an investigative reporter." Um, that's what she is: she uncovered an important scandal that you were trying to keep secret, Joe. No number of PR flacks can help someone this haughty. Trust me, VegNews will never be the same after this.
Thank you for reading my article and commenting on it. I agree with you that VegNews (for that matter, any company) shouldn't consult PR spinners. Spinning a crisis doesn't work, for the very reason you suggested - doing so will immediately be seen as inauthentic, and it will backfire.
What outside experts could have helped with was advising them from moment one that their credibility was at stake, and that there was only one thing that should say: "We screwed up, we're terribly embarrassed by our error in judgment, and it will never happen again." They DID say that eventually, but it took them five days. They could have saved themselves a lot of heartache by saying it on day one, hour one.
Thanks again,
Brad
Thanks for weighing in,
Bruce
While Quarrygirl should have made several attempts to contact VegNews, VegNews should have anticipated this controversy. Ultimately, they knowingly left themselves open to this. Perhaps a movement that challenges itself to be completely truthful is ultimately a stronger, more credible movement.
I wonder, if I were considering becoming vegan and read about this, would I be encouraged to try vegan food which is apparently not attractive or appealing enough for those who are already vegan to photograph.
I find the situation very sad and very disappointing, and can only hope that VegNews learn from this and treat their readers and staff with more respect in future.
These animals may have been domesticated for their flesh, but that doesn't make the whole endeavor right. You're basically saying: "Let's torture, slaughter, and eat animals because that's what someone else did." How retarded an argument is that?
These animals should not have been domesticated in the first place. Now that they have been, they can be preserved in 'preserves,' or they can be valued for their own sake. While I'd prefer we just treat them with dignity, they should go extinct if the alternative is a lifetime of suffering for billions just to satisfy your (and those of other reality-deniers like you) pathetic taste buds.
Offensive. Not all meat is from animals that have been "systematic[ally] tortured." Nothing DrP said supports torture and his argument is not "retarded." It's this kind of nonsense that - justifiably - makes vegans the butt of so much criticism (and so many jokes) about their obnoxiousness.
I don't know about you, but I find it practically impossible to avoid doing business with anyone and everyone who somehow profits from animal killing. There isn't even a vegetarian restaurant in the city where I work, what to speak of a vegetarian supermarket. How do you remain so pure?