Seattle Weekly - Two Sides of Beef

[jenzie]

Check out this weeks Seattle Weekly - the cover proclaims "VEGAN NATION." I'd be interested to hear opinions on the article.

[jenzie]

Vegan Nation
http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0408/040225_news_twosides.php

The Seattle Weekly has on it's cover the words "Vegan Nation" and while it's nice to see the word Vegan in the Press, the article is not entirely favorable toward veganism or animal rights. Please read the article and then write Philip Dawdy at pdawdy@seattleweekly.com and/or the editor of the Weekly at letters@seattleweekly.com and let them know what you think of the article. The article is not very balanced and according to those present during the interviews, not very accurate either. Thanks to Eleni, Rob, Karen, Sarah Schmidt, Sarah Stegner, Jessica for all the hard work that went into the dinner with Dawdy and thanks also to those who submitted recipes.

[Spaceman]

Two Sides of Beef (http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0408/040225_news_twosides.php)

warning: if you are sensitive to the goings on in a meat packing facility, I would not read the article.

[JasonSt]

Oh, didn't you hear? The claims that PETA and other AR groups make about what goes on in "slaughterhouses" are nothing more than petty attempts to slander a reputable industry for their own personal gain (the true vegan demopraghic is comprised of those that make more than $300K US per year and embrace the conservative philosophy). Animals are treated like royalty in the "slaughterhouse".

We silly vegans, when will we ever learn? I propose a new type of vegan, call it a neo-vegan, who shuns all blatantly slanted press and realizes that the meat/dairy industries care about the consumer and, less importantly, the animals.

[JasonSt]

Honestly, people who make the switch to vegan only to later convert back to full omni confound me. I have to wonder what the author's motivation was for ever going vegan: "I've flirted with veganism twice. I've also tried vegetarianism. Each time, I returned to meat and dairy. What's more, I have my doubts about endowing each cow or chicken with so much intelligence and feeling that we need to develop a social compact that translates into not eating meat." What?! Isn't this the major impetus to becoming vegan?

Was he just trying to fit in? Did it make him feel smart or better than others?: "LIKE OTHERS ALERT TO INTELLECTUAL and philosophical shifts, I've done a lot of thinking and reading." TRANSLATION: "My mom says I'm smart!"

Utterly confused...

[mountainvegan]

First, I wonder if and how much Phillip was paid by the slaughterhouse as a "reporter" (PR guy).

Second, this is typical AW BS designed to soothe the guilty consciences out there.

Third, AW laws will NOT end the intensive feedlot operations where cattle live in a couple of feet of excrement. I live in Colorado - I have seen feedlot operations first hand many times - it is horrible. AW laws will not change it. AR is the only way.

Fourth, intensive feedlot operations are MANDATORY to feed the masses flesh. Green pasture operations are not cost effective and CANNOT work for mass flesh production.

That article is complete bulls***. :mad:

[penfold]

he does sound only too pleased to have had his position "vindicated" by the "humane" slaughterhouses he visited. he says he's met all colours of vegans, and yet he doesn't sound like he's met too many actually well-balanced ones (walled off in communties, won't dine with meat-eaters etc).

i'll agree with him in so far as that tofu and soymilk chowder sounds totally sick-making :sick: ... and with celery in too ... will our reputation ever recover????? :huh:

what's up girls? why no roast potatoes, no grilled peppers and aubergines. no imam bayeldi? no colourful mexican scoff? no pizza or pasta or indian food or bright peppery salads? or for god's sake ...anything other than chowder with tofu and soymilk.

I like Rachel's T-shirt - anyone know where I can get one?

[jenzie]

Originally posted by penfold
I like Rachel's T-shirt - anyone know where I can get one?

I've seen them all over... I'll keep an eye out so I can tell you exactly where. ;) Maybe Pangea?

[jenzie]

If you'd like, the info to write to Philip Dawdy can be found here:
*mod note- merged the threads*

[mountainvegan]

Thanks, jenzie. I think I will. That article is a breeze to chew up and spit out. :cool:

[Spaceman]

Originally posted by JasonSt
Honestly, people who make the switch to vegan only to later convert back to full omni confound me. I have to wonder what the author's motivation was for ever going vegan

Their reasoning is part of their effort to debunk our beliefs. Unfortunately, many people buy this weak reasoning. I just see the person as being weak willed.

[veganrich]

After seeing the cover when the issue was released last Wednesday, I was eager to read the article, but didn't get around to it until today. I must say I was quite disappointed.

In my opinion, and contrary to what I expected, it is mostly a pro-meat article (about 80%), and an attempt by the author to rationalize his own personal failures at previous attempts at veg*ism.

He goes into some graphic detail about the slaughterhouse process he witnessed, but describes it as humane, with the cattle being treated well and remaining completely calm right up until the moment a bolt is shot through the skull. What he's saying, of course, is that things are not nearly as bad as the horrible images of factory farming portrayed by animal-rights "propaganda." He also describes his encounter with happy cows while visiting a dairy farm, again debunking the animal-rights message. He throws in a couple of stories about a "vegan" who sneaks some cheese into her diet, and the daughter of a beef industry executive who abruptly ended her vegetarian ways by raiding the refrigerator one night and pigging out on leftover ribs.

Vegans are portrayed as extreme radicals who for the most part subsist on subpar, unfulfilling food.

About the only positive things he had to say were that the higher quality of produce available and improved animal welfare standards and safety of the meat supply can be attributed to the vegan movement.

As when ex-vegan celebrities go back to their meat-eating ways and then publicly speak out against their former lifestyle, the net effect of this article is that people who are contemplating switching to veg*ism are going to come away thinking "why bother?"

[mountainvegan]

Here is the letter I sent to Phillip and the oped e-mail -

Mr. Dawdy,

I read your “news” article entitled “Two Sides of Beef” in the February 25 – March 2, 2004 issue of Seattle Weekly. As a report on the way meat and dairy products are brought to the consumer, animal rights and welfare philosophy, and vegetarian and vegan food and lifestyles, it could not have been more biased if it were written by the Washington State Beef Commission themselves. The Commission invited you to Washington Beef’s “model slaughterhouse.” Did the Commission also pay you to write this propaganda?

First, you seem to be opposed to factory farming presumably because of the extreme cruelty involved in it. You promote good animal husbandry as a “moderate” alternative. I honestly admire your compassion and consideration regarding the cruelty of factory farming, but I have a question: Can the US population, 300 million people, afford meat at the prices required to sustain “good animal husbandry,” “cruelty-free” production, and environmentally sound farming? I would like to see you adequately support a positive answer to that question. Good luck, nobody has been able to support a positive answer so far, probably because it is impossible.

Second, you claim to have “flirted” with veganism twice, yet you claim later on that “it is a very hard choice to go vegetarian or vegan.” Mr. Dawdy, as a “flirter” or a dabbler or an interviewer of vegans, I fail to see your authority to claim that it is a difficult choice to go vegetarian or vegan. To me, it sounds like someone who talked to a few tennis players about tennis, played a couple of games, and concluded that it was a “difficult choice” to engage in tennis or that tennis is “difficult.” If you are going to discredit something in a “news article,” at least back it up with reliable experience or facts, not just “flirting” and one homemade dinner outing with vegans, who may or may not be good cooks. Personally, I find vegan food just as good as non-vegan food and much healthier, you just have to know what brands and combinations of food are good and which to avoid – no different from omnivore brands and combinations.

Third, you claim you have “done a lot of thinking and reading” and that you have “read Peter Singer.” Mr. Dawdy, have you read Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights or Gary Francione’s Introduction to Animal Rights? Although I greatly admire Peter Singer for his pioneering work in animal welfare, in my (and many others’) opinion, Tom Regan’s philosophy is far more solid and rigorously supported than Singer’s. Law professor Gary Francione makes an excellent legal argument for animal rights. Either of these books are much better than Animal Liberation. I highly recommend these books to you and your readers.

Fourth, you say “we kill animals all the time” and “we’ve done it for many thousands of years.” I would like to point out that we’ve done a lot of things over many thousands of years, like war and slavery. Does the fact that we do these things or have done these things for many thousands of years justify them? Does social and moral progress matter at all?

Fifth, you make vegans out to be hard-core punk anarchists who prove their coolness with tattoos, piercings, and veganism. Personally, I don’t know any vegans who fit that description at all. On the contrary, most vegans I know are young professionals. I am a partner in a firm of certified public accountants with moderately short hair and no tattoos or piercings anywhere – hardly your image of a radical.

Mr. Dawdy, I am an animal rights vegan and I love it. Even if animal cruelty was not an issue, I would stay vegan because the food is both tasty and healthy. I found your article to be biased and disrespectful to say the least. Next time you write an article for your paper, please attempt to be straight forward and unbiased in your reporting.

[penfold]

very cool, mountainvegan :D

[Artichoke47]

Yay, MV! Very good letter.

[mountainvegan]

Thanks. :)

[veganrich]

Excellent letter, mountainvegan! :thumbsup:

[xtensive]

Great letter MV!

If anyone has other questions/concerns/whatever that you'd like to direct to the participants in the "dinner w/ Dawdy", you can forward emails to info@narn.org. Rachel Bjork, the organizer of the dinner is also one of the coordinators for NARN.

Though Dawdy, in the past, has written a number of articles sympathetic to "our cause", most of us here are in agreement that he went overboard in trying to legitimize his own life's decisions, printing only that info which made him feel better about himself. Unfortunate to say the least.

However, there is some light here, as described by a good friend while we were discussing the article.

Weekly mags are a funny thing, and many, many more people will walk past a Seattle Weekly box and read the cover than will actually read the article. For all those folk, all they're gonna see is the U.S. filled w/ a bunch of great looking veggies and the words, "Vegan Nation", in nice large type.

That thought is gonna stick, and stick in a positive manner. Many folks won't read the article, but will come away w/ a good light shining on veganism, and they'll be thinking they need to investigate that bandwagon... and possibly jump on.

So when you meet them on the streets, have your best smile on and give 'em the hard sell. We are working a many-pronged front here.

regards
mX.

[veganrich]

Originally posted by xtensive
Weekly mags are a funny thing, and many, many more people will walk past a Seattle Weekly box and read the cover than will actually read the article.

That's probably true, and something I didn't really think of. So for those who don't actually read the article, the issue should have a positive effect. Thanks for pointing that out. I feel better now.

[mountainvegan]

Thanks veganrich and xtensive. Good point, xtensive.

Does anyone know the reaction of the dinner participants to the article / report? I know I would be a bit peeved if I were them. In other situations, I've learned the hard way never to trust reporters unless you know them well and can more or less predict what they will print. Even then, there is a risk of being misquoted, misrepresented, etc. When in doubt, decline an interview. No press is better than bad press.

[xtensive]

Originally posted by mountainvegan
When in doubt, decline an interview. No press is better than bad press.

That's kinda funny in that Ingrid Newkirk totally disagrees w/ that statement. Not that I'm saying she's right... just saying.

WRT the participants, the overall mood wasn't good. (A bit peeved would be an understatement.) Basically they felt a lot of what they said was taken out of context or misquoted or misrepresented; again, to help Dawdy feel better about himself.

The event was thrown together quickly. There were only two in attendance who had had real experience dealing w/ the media - the importance of which became strikingly obvious to us only after the fact.

As a post-mortem, NARN is thinking of organizing a media contact workshop in the near future to help educate interested parties on how to, well, deal w/ the media; how to be aware of their methods; how best not to provide them w/ fodder which they can make appear to contradict your views, etc.

This will be especially important moving into the Spring/Summer/Fall which are big times for doing public outreach for us (and many organizations) as the weather permits.

If anyone (in the Seattle area) has any interest in this _OR_ has skills they feel may be valuable to offer in this area, please drop a line to info@narn.org and let them know.

thanks
mX.

edited to correct email link

[mountainvegan]

Originally posted by xtensive
That's kinda funny in that Ingrid Newkirk totally disagrees w/ that statement. Not that I'm saying she's right... just saying.

I think Newkirk likes controversial press to bring national news to PETA (like marching naked on a crowded street), but not "misrepresentation." So, she likes "bad press," but of a certain kind. I'm not sure how I feel about that. On one hand, I like it because there would be no national media attention and PETA would not be as big or well known (and therefore not as effective) if it wasn't for their bad press. :p On the other hand, some of the more controversial stuff causes resentment and anger and makes ARAs out to be extremists. Overall though, I am a big PETA fan. I think they do a ton of good aside from the publicity stunts.

WRT the participants, the overall mood wasn't good. (A bit peeved would be an understatement.) Basically they felt a lot of what they said was taken out of context or misquoted or misrepresented; again, to help Dawdy feel better about himself.


I'm sure. :mad:

[herbi]

just chiming in late to say EXCELLENT points, both about the cover of the weekly being positive even if the story wasn't, and that it's easy to underestimate the Badness of friendly media representatives-- I learned that the hard way when interviewed about some animals we'd (the shelter I work for) rescued from a puppy mill, and having everything I said completely misquoted and taken out of context to support an article that was slanted FOR the horrible woman who ran it! :mad: The lesson-- make sure you see EXACTLY what they're going to "quote" you as having said, BEFORE anything gets published! :umm: