There's that moment when you are watching a favourite TV series, new film, vlog, listening to the radio, or engaging particularly with any arts-media form and you hear the word 'vegan': you think 'oh that's cool - good for us' (well, as a vegan myself, I think that).
Watching Season 3 of Crossing Lines, there's a new detective on scene. He goes to buy some street food for himself and a colleague, colleague looks at said food dubiously and replies 'but aren't you vegan?' and the detective puts it down. A very real vegan scenario when you're out and about somewhere you don't know and you try your best to describe your requirements to the food vendor who is, unfortunately, none-the-wiser. And more publicity is everything... right?
If it weren't for the fact that in a previous episode this very same detective had been refusing to comb through someone's outside bin for incriminating material due to the fact that he was wearing his best 'cotton and silk' suit and overcoat. The writers wanted to make a point that this 'vegan' was a bit full of himself.
But what's more likely? That the character genuinely cares little for the animal exploitation involved in the creation of silk, or that the writers simply weren't aware the veganism is about more than just eating plants. Hey, maybe they think silk grows on trees. Is this good publicity? Total misrepresentation by the ignorant or sloppy media? Then again perhaps the vegan community hasn't helped when there are still non-vegans calling themselves 'vegan'. Are we culpable?
Have you noticed any similar mistakes about veganism in arts-media? If I was a twitter kind of person, I'd probably make up some hashtag and make sure the writers/network noticed the error. But that's because I don't know where to direct my frustration - the character or the writers.
Watching Season 3 of Crossing Lines, there's a new detective on scene. He goes to buy some street food for himself and a colleague, colleague looks at said food dubiously and replies 'but aren't you vegan?' and the detective puts it down. A very real vegan scenario when you're out and about somewhere you don't know and you try your best to describe your requirements to the food vendor who is, unfortunately, none-the-wiser. And more publicity is everything... right?
If it weren't for the fact that in a previous episode this very same detective had been refusing to comb through someone's outside bin for incriminating material due to the fact that he was wearing his best 'cotton and silk' suit and overcoat. The writers wanted to make a point that this 'vegan' was a bit full of himself.
But what's more likely? That the character genuinely cares little for the animal exploitation involved in the creation of silk, or that the writers simply weren't aware the veganism is about more than just eating plants. Hey, maybe they think silk grows on trees. Is this good publicity? Total misrepresentation by the ignorant or sloppy media? Then again perhaps the vegan community hasn't helped when there are still non-vegans calling themselves 'vegan'. Are we culpable?
Have you noticed any similar mistakes about veganism in arts-media? If I was a twitter kind of person, I'd probably make up some hashtag and make sure the writers/network noticed the error. But that's because I don't know where to direct my frustration - the character or the writers.
