The
interview I had with Ingrid Newkirk a while ago finally is published in the new
issue of GoVeg.
Left: GoVeg nr 3. Right: GoVeg nr 2
GoVeg is a
free bilingual (English and Chinese language) vegan magazine published and
distributed in Hong Kong. It is meant to introduce and promote veg topics in a
light and entertaining way to ordinary people who are interested in the veg
lifestyle.
My purpose
of the Peta interview was not a deep digging critical article attempting to win
the Pulitzer Price but to make a sympathetic interview and through Peta talk
about veganism and animal rights issues.
I am still
baffled, confused and seriously disappointed by Ingrid’s naive comment to buy
as much veggie burgers as possible in the McDonalds, in order to “support”
veganism. I was fishing for an “Eating a veggie burger in McShit? No frikkin’
way I ever will support such a restaurant with my vegan dollars! Want to support
veganism? Visit your local vegan restaurant!” type of answer. Not my lucky day it seemed.
On the
other hand, Ingrid’s advice how to deal with family and non vegan friends, when
making the vegan transition, is an extremely helpful practical advice. She
advises to talk individually with friends and family, who often don’t
realize their comments are unsupportive to the new vegan, and explicitly to ask
for their support and to refrain from jokes or negative comments.
Website of GoVeg Asia, with links to all the previous GoVeg issues digital version. Nr 2 has an interview with Eric Brent, founder of HappyCow.
An editor
made some minor changes in the original text of the Peta interview. One change was rather fundamental
though.
The
original question
“What was the result of this undercover investigation?
Shops and retailers stopped selling angora wool?”
has been
changed into:
“did
releasing this investigation leads to results, to improvement in the treatment
of these rabbits.”
Maybe you
shake your head in disbelief now and don’t know what I am talking about, but in
essence an animal rights question has been changed into a soft animal
welfare question, and I wasn’t too happy with that.
First of
all, the word “undercover” has been omitted, so now the reader might as well
think that this was an investigation done with the approval of the angora wool
factory.
Second,
undercover investigations like these explicitly are done to educate customers
and shops and to urge them to STOP buying and selling these cruel products, NOT
to “improve” the miserable lives of these poor abused animals, as the altered
question suggest. Should we fight for “better treatment” and demand that their
hair is pulled out in a gentle way?
An editor
probably makes these subtle yet meaningful changes to soften up text, to pull
some teeth, to make happy articles without words that are viewed negative or
zzzzumthing. Or maybe to defuse a confrontational attitude (“undercover
investigation, stop buying their products”) against a Chinese business.
No comments:
Post a Comment