Is this vegan activism?

"WTF is this blurry pixelated poorly-lit-shady-basement mess of a print? Never more in my life have I felt my desire to eat oysters escape my body and transcend into the astral plane. What is this? This sad joke, it isn't tongue in cheek, it isn't cleverly naughty, it isn't a wink and nod with the air of a subtle chuckle euphemism...the punchline really is just "haha porn"."

"We have been sex positive here for a while, but this cover photo making it to public print proves to me that there may be such a thing as too much porn. We live in a society. We live in a city of artists, many of whom are struggling and would have had millions of better ideas for your paper. We live in a city trying to sell oysters for the holidays. The Mercury would never subject us to this kind of thing."

The WW cover photo is described as blurry, pixelated, and poorly lit, resembling a shady basement. The image eliminates appetite for oysters and reads as overtly pornographic rather than playful or clever. The cover is criticized for lacking subtlety, wit, or sex-positive nuance, delivering a crude "haha porn" punchline. The writer contends the city contains many struggling artists who could have produced far better ideas. The choice to publish this image in public print is judged inappropriate compared with other outlets, prompting a demand for editorial improvement and accountability.

Read at Portland Mercury