
Vice Media to Reorganize, Lay Off 10 Percent of Staff - rhayabusa
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/vice-media-reorganize-lay-10-percent-staff-1181785
======
Reedx
IIRC, I was introduced to Vice with their _fascinating_ coverage of North
Korea:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24R8JObNNQ4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24R8JObNNQ4)
(first trip - Shane Smith was banned from the country as a result)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrCQh1usdzE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrCQh1usdzE)
(second trip years later, where they got in under the guise of a Basketball
game)

Unfortunately it's been increasingly hit or miss ever since and now their
process seems to be along these lines:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw5UzBjgCiI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw5UzBjgCiI)

Also, how is it that so many of these media companies are having layoffs at
almost exactly the same time? You'd think it'd be more scattered...

~~~
52-6F-62
It's happening in Canada as well.

They're just not making enough money. They're making money, but not enough.
There's a large drive to produce more with less, and to reboot.

Journalism, especially _good_ journalism, is expensive. Expensive to execute,
and expensive to produce.

And everybody wants it for free now.

~~~
dleslie
Vice was cheap to run, for a time. It started as a niche magazine in Quebec
and expanded into yellow journalism with cheap to make, but provocative,
YouTube documentaries.

Then it was acquired and it pivoted sharply into being a media and news
portal, with a presence on nigh every platform. The content quickly expanded
in quantity, and critically overloaded itself in trying to dominate online
discussion in every space.

~~~
chipotle_coyote
> _Then it was acquired_

By who? The Wikipedia article on Vice Media says they were acquired in 1999--
without listing who the acquirers were--but also says that the cofounders
bought it back in 2001. All of the pivoting you're talking about appears to
have happened under the original management, in any case, didn't it? They've
had investment from a bunch of "old media" companies over the years, but
original founder Shane Smith retained a controlling interest. (It looks like
Disney will own more of the company than he does once their merger with Fox is
completed.)

~~~
dleslie
It's not an acquisition, per se, so much as some of it was acquired and the
leadership changed at a time that major changes were being undertaken.

At a time when the executive controlled roughly 3/4 of Vice, Fox purchased 5%
of it; other major media have done so. Shortly before this occurance, Gavin
McInnes had left his leadership role over alleged differences of opinion on
how to run Vice Media.

His departure, the arrival of large media conglomerates as large minority
shareholders, and the rapid expansion of Vice into new properties and markets
all occur within a very short time span.

------
creaghpatr
I wonder if the Buzzfeed/Vice/Huffington Post layoffs are related to the
appropriations of the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act
running out. The US government was subsidizing certain organizations to
counter fake news to the tune of $20M.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Countering_F...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Countering_Foreign_Propaganda_and_Disinformation_Act_of_2016.pdf&page=9)

~~~
hahla
How do you keep abreast of these sort of appropriations that are passed?

~~~
oftenwrong
[https://congress.gov/resources/display/content/Appropriation...](https://congress.gov/resources/display/content/Appropriations+for+Fiscal+Year+2019)

Also you can get notifications of updates via email or RSS:

[https://updates.loc.gov/accounts/USLOC/subscriber/new?topic_...](https://updates.loc.gov/accounts/USLOC/subscriber/new?topic_id=USLOC_152)

[https://www.congress.gov/rss/appropriations.xml](https://www.congress.gov/rss/appropriations.xml)

~~~
protomyth
and remember to follow it to the end with
[https://www.federalregister.gov/](https://www.federalregister.gov/) to see
the final regulations, grant requests, and final distributions

------
grawprog
I didn't mind vice media until I watched their 'documentary' about crokodil in
Russia. The whole thing was dramatized around the idea of a new horrifying,
skin melting drug that was killing people. Throughout the whole thing there
was one very small mention about the fact it's actually codeine with the
solvents used in production improperly purged and no real mention about the
flesh melting being caused by red phosphorus not being completely removed.

The entire focus was on this 'new terrifying drug' when it really should have
been about the abject poverty leading those desperate junkies to shooting up
cheap, solvent laced opiates.

The whole thing really bugged me and honestly, the attitudes of their
journalists when they go into places like that is really just terrible
sometimes. Though I guess it did lead me to research more on the subject and
learn enough to know what a poor documentary it really was...

------
mruts
Vice has really uneven quality among their departments. The main site is all
garbage. Motherboard and Vice News are mostly okay.

What I think they do best is their TV. Vice News Tonight is extremely good.
And their HBO one hour show is also very good.

~~~
joshschreuder
Throw in Nirvanna the Band the Show which is one of the funniest shows in
years

------
prepend
It’s surprising that there are 2500 staff at vice. I thought they mostly used
freelancers.

~~~
noer
Purely Conjecture:

A friend works there as a video editor and they work exclusively on the weekly
show, which kind of leads me to believe that they probably have teams
allocated to a single property. I also know they'll work on one episode for a
couple of weeks, so they have separate teams of people working on separate
episodes at once.

Edit: my friend was a freelancer there for a few years before they were hired

------
nopriorarrests
Verizon media (aka huffpost, techcrunch and others), Buzzfeed, and now Vice.
The beat goes on.

~~~
gcb0
your list just show the yearly churn of the news-repost industry (i.e.
companies that have zero investigative journalism, needs fresh people to get
fresh news sources to repost)

vice (not the site) and buzzfeed news (not regular buzzfeed) are a new beatst
in the news industry. they sell tailored pieces (pretty much an improved model
that wired used to reborn in the 2000s). for example vice got a huge account
promoting gun hobby. go to their YouTube channel and you will see half of
their documentaries are touting the fun of owning guns. the site now only
exists as a payment hub for those documentaries. buzzfeed (and Verizon media)
tried the same but are moving much slower (but you wait when an election is
around the corner, you will hear a lot from those)

~~~
tru3_power
Sorry I’m a little confused- are you basically saying Vice will tailor make
you a edgy documentary about whatever you want if you pay them enough?

~~~
gcb0
just like most news outlet ever worked. sometimes you get it even from cheap
favors like a couple plane tickets so their staff can attend your grand
opening. other times you have to talk to their ad seller and say "gee! I
wonder if you have a piece with this sentiment on this topic I could drop this
million dollar advertising budget." and everything in between.

------
newnewpdro
Their youtube channel used to deliver incredibly raw and direct coverage of
world events other US news sources seemed to be ignoring. Over the last few
years though I've become increasingly annoyed with what content of theirs I
saw, it's definitely changed.

Their coverage of the rebuilding efforts and failures in Afghanistan for
instance was very illuminating and well done, I highly recommend giving this a
watch though it's very upsetting:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja5Q75hf6QI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja5Q75hf6QI)

------
Taylor_OD
I enjoyed Vice content for a while but when they scaled they seemed to lose
their edge. Honestly it probably became a much better place to work but that
translated to noticeably worse content.

I want people to like their jobs... But if the option is have a shit demanding
job where you make great content vs a nice comfortable job where you make
good/mediocre content and then get laid off.

What's better?

------
hemantv
Is it just me or there is lay off every other day. Tesla, Buzzfeed etc.

This does not seem like a economy at its peak. It seems like a contraction.

~~~
smacktoward
As someone who lived through both the original dot-com crash and the crash of
the housing bubble, let me provide some reassurance: if we hit a _real_
contraction, you will not feel like you need to ask anyone if that's what's
happening.

~~~
drankula3
A bubble popping and a contraction are different things.

------
oskkejdjdkjd
Vice is completely biased and it makes me happy to imagine snarky vice people
being laid off. I hope that these layoffs are a sign that the clickbait model
of journalism is failing. I would gladly pay for my news if it _werent
biased_. But I haven’t found a news firm that is free of bias, not even the
economist is.

------
ucaetano
I'm still hoping that Vice Media will renounce its bigotted past and either
remove or address some articles, such as:

[https://www.vice.com/da/article/9bv7qv/the-vice-guide-to-
par...](https://www.vice.com/da/article/9bv7qv/the-vice-guide-to-partying-
parties)

A sneak peak:

 _Here are some of the types you 'll need to invite.

TRANSSEXUAL: Pre-op is good, but post–breast implants, pre–gender reassignment
is PERFECTION. All transsexuals are slutty, so don't worry about that. This
guest is a very high priority and should be catered to accordingly. Put her
first in the queue for cocaine and drinks. Tell her how pretty she is. Touch
her a lot.

GUY WHO WILL FUCK TRANSSEXUAL: He is your #2 guy, your party wingman. If the
tranny doesn't feel loved, she will leave._

~~~
anongraddebt
My first question about these types of articles is, "Who is the intended
audience?" The transgender community is a very small portion of the populace.
Vice seems to be a center-left organization (if not, then even more to the
left). Presumably, they aren't writing for the transgender community because:

(1) The community is very small. and (2) That community would likely not want
to read this.

Is the intended audience center-left folks? I don't really see why that
audience would want to read this. Is the audience center-right? Full-throated
right-wing? I don't see why any substantial number of conservatives would care
to read this?

I have a pet theory about the rate of absurdity in a world being dependent on
the rate of both population growth and communications connectivity, but I
won't bore anyone here with it.

~~~
ucaetano
A little more context: the article is from 2005, when Vice was still a
hipster/edgy/provocative publication focused on shocking and with no political
leaning, largely led by Gavin McInnes (of later alt-right Proud Boys fame).

While Vice largely change its approach after McInnes left, it hasn't removed
or addressed the articles from those darker times.

