
The Cult of Vice - samclemens
http://www.cjr.org/analysis/the_cult_of_vice.php
======
copsarebastards
> But editorial standards change when your aim is not to be an entertainment
> company, but a trusted source of news.

This amazes me: what makes them think that they _aren 't_ a trusted source of
news for their audience?

> With expansion comes a sense of responsibility,” he told me recently in one
> of Vice’s glass-walled conference rooms. “As time goes on I don’t think that
> being silly, being stupid, is cool anymore. When you look at the planet, at
> the state that it’s in, it demands attention. It demands scrutiny. And it
> demands a certain level of seriousness.”

Could it be that it's exactly the lack of seriousness of Vice's reporting up
to this point that has made people trust them? Reality _isn 't_ always
serious, and when it is, sometimes the only way to deal with it is to laugh at
it, or to admit that it's strange.

In short, this looks like yet another company getting big and then changing
everything that made them successful. It's not necessarily going to hurt their
bottom line, but it's an example of why companies getting big is bad for
consumers.

~~~
fennecfoxen
> This amazes me: what makes them think that they aren't a trusted source of
> news for their audience?

High-quality, prestigious yellow journalism. Remember the _Maine!_

~~~
copsarebastards
"Yellow journalism" means it's sensationalized or exaggerated, but I think
most of Vice's stuff wasn't; they simply reported on sensational topics, and
people assumed they were exaggerated because the topics are seemingly larger-
than-life to an audience unfamiliar with them.

Of course, they weren't perfect, but when they did sensationalize or
exaggerate, I think it was a bit more harmless than most news sources.
Everyone is doing it to sell ad space, but Vice tended to sensationalize
stories that were weird rather than stories that created fear or outrage--
their sensationalism was less politicized.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm talking about Vice a while back, not Vice now. The
changes mentioned in the article are already apparent in some of what Vice is
doing these days.

------
Apocryphon
'Vice has described its salaries as “competitive with comparable emerging
media companies,” but many employees seem to be here for the work and the
culture, not the money.

“There’s a sense that you’re lucky to be there,” said one former employee.
“What you don’t get paid for in cash is made up in the cool factor, and maybe
getting into their parties.”

“It’s like a cult,” said another ex-employee.'

When an employer makes it clear that you're lucky to work for them, and when
you're getting paid in cool factor instead of cash, you probably are working
for a corporate cult.

~~~
NeutronBoy
> When an employer makes it clear that you're lucky to work for them, and when
> you're getting paid in cool factor instead of cash, you probably are working
> for a corporate cult.

Or a startup

~~~
santaclaus
Or a game studio.

------
serve_yay
Where Vice started and where it is now is certainly a sign of the times, I'll
say that.

------
ambirex
Perhaps this is now old, but everytime Vice is brought up all I can think of
is this piece with David Carr from Page One (2011) -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmkec_4Rfo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmkec_4Rfo)

~~~
thieving_magpie
It has one of the best insults I've ever heard, hence its popularity. "Just
cuz you put on a fucking safari helmet and look at some poop..."

But to dismiss what they've done with this video being posted every time does
everyone a disservice. But yeah, good for a laugh. Not to be overly high and
mighty about it but I'd really prefer to do my funny pics/videos on reddit.

~~~
ambirex
I really wasn't trying to dismiss what the have been evolving into, rather to
voice my own problems seeing past the Vice that was presented in Page One.

------
pessimizer
Isn't Vice's show on HBO just Unreported World with no women, anorexic men,
and sarcasm?

The last season even repeated the exact same story with the same correspondent
and the same _title_ for the Egyptian Tomb Raiders segment (
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KmPQEtnqqI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KmPQEtnqqI)
).

------
stefs
i occasionally read local vice articles (not u.s. - they obviously employ
writers in lots of countries) and most of them are unbearable trash.

then, suddenly, a gem appears. the vice munchies take on weightlifter morghan
kings diet is one of the better introduction to weightlifting in general.

(in case anyone's interested: [http://munchies.vice.com/videos/fuel-the-diet-
of-champion-we...](http://munchies.vice.com/videos/fuel-the-diet-of-champion-
weightlifter-morghan-king) )

------
tezka
Relevant older, harsher piece

[http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/the-vertically-
integrated-r...](http://www.thebaffler.com/salvos/the-vertically-integrated-
rape-joke)

~~~
hitekker
I'm sure the author in your link had some good points, but they may have been
overshadowed by all of the article's vitriol.

------
litmus
the interview with the hell-banned founder (Gavin McInnes):

[http://canadalandshow.com/podcasts/vice-oral-
history](http://canadalandshow.com/podcasts/vice-oral-history)

~~~
heydenberk
Just an FYI, before you listen to what he spews: McInnes is a white
nationalist, homophobe, transphobe and misogynist. This mediamatters post
summarizes some of the outrageous things he's said or done:
[http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/05/meet-the-hipster-
rac...](http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/05/meet-the-hipster-racist-fox-
news-guest-attackin/199617)

You can understand why Vice would want to erase this dude from their history.
I don't think they should be allowed to shrug it off, but I'm also glad that
they try.

~~~
cholantesh
I remain unconvinced that he's not simply a troll playing a very long con.
When I read him as such, I have found him very enjoyable, but as of late,
overexposure is really causing the joke to wear thin.

~~~
heydenberk
I don't find it funny, and I bet that most people in the groups that he's
"trolling" (exercising hate speech toward) don't either.

~~~
drunkcatsdgaf
you mean hes exercising freedom of speech? Regardless of views, he has that
right.

~~~
eropple
Man...I'm really, really sick of this lame, lame, _lame_ defense of lousy
behavior. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that anybody _other than the
government_ has to have anything to do with you and doesn't apply to anybody
here in their personal judgments of somebody who's choosing to act shitty.

And maybe it's just me, but it strikes me that, when the best defense or
excuse that you can trot out is that _hey, it 's actually going to get you
arrested to do it_, the moral argument is not exactly strong.

~~~
joshuapants
> Freedom of speech doesn't mean that anybody other than the government has to
> have anything to do with you and doesn't apply to anybody here in their
> personal judgments of somebody who's choosing to act shitty.

Man... I'm really sick of this lame, lame, _lame_ misunderstanding of free
speech. The first amendment of the US Bill of Rights is a legal embodiment
(among many others throughout history) of the ideal of free speech, _but that
's not where it ends_. Attempts to shame (or otherwise coerce) unpopular
speakers into silence is still a violation of that ideal.

~~~
eropple
You are wrong both in the textual sense and the historical sense of it.
"Freedom of speech" has _never_ in the history of the United States been
anything but a governmental restriction; it has never been a moral calling for
the citizenry. Nor should it be: while there is a compelling argument for the
government's agnosticism with regards to the viewpoints of the citizenry,
there is no serious or compelling argument for the citizenry's agnosticism
with regards to the viewpoints of each other.

Shame is a tool for fixing shitlords or, if they are unfixable, rendering them
powerless. It's a good tool. It gets a bad rap when the powerful are powerful
no longer, but--strangely enough--never does when the powerful _are_ powerful.

~~~
joshuapants
Sounds like you need to do a bit more reading on the subject.

> "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for
> views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in
> favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of
> freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely
> for views you despise." - _Noam Chomsky in Manufacturing Consent_

But of course, you probably already do understand this and are just willfully
ignorant.

> Shame is a tool for fixing shitlords or, if they are unfixable, rendering
> them powerless.

This has told me pretty much everything I need to know about your viewpoint.
You're a bully and you relish silencing opinions you don't agree with, while
thinking you hold some kind of moral high ground. Whatever gets you through
the day, I guess.

~~~
stinkytaco
>Sounds like you need to do a bit more reading on the subject.

I feel like you're making unsupported claims. I can think if two instances
where you are correct:

1\. "Equal time" laws, which are so specific and narrow in their scope to the
point of being almost meaningless in a fractured media landscape.

2\. Slander and Libel laws which protect people from being personally attacked
when the claims are untrue. These laws do not apply to true claims, nor do
they apply to criticism of opinions and they are very loose in the instance of
public figures.

Neither one of these apply in this situation. I am perfectly within my rights
to say "That opinion is wrong." and criticize it. Indeed, one could argue
that's the very point of free speech, to encourage public discourse and
argument.

~~~
eropple
I think you're missing his point. He's attempting to staple a moral argument
to the citizenry--that it's not merely the government that must ensure freedom
of speech, it's that _we as citizens_ must accept and tolerate shitty speech.
Which has no significant historical basis--Noam Chomsky is a guy and I don't
have to agree with him, even when he's not being misquoted--but is alarmingly
popular in certain dank corners of the internet.

More specifically, this notion is the origin of redpill horseshit--itself
fallout from the fundamental disaster of my generation: the belief that we
_deserve to be loved_ , that people who don't love and adore us are _wrong_.
From that tragic misapprehension rises this back-assward idea of acceptance-
for-everything-under-the-sun, which you will note is employed almost strictly
by people who have lost positions of social power but still cling to the
ideologies of superiority that put them there.

One must deserve to be loved, and that requires work and effort. It is not, to
crib a phrase from a friend, an existential entitlement.

