PDA

View Full Version : mainstreaming of VICE // VICE mainstream



padraig (u.s.)
14-04-2013, 08:43 PM
so, VICE has graduated from a YT channel to a show on HBO and in the last couple weeks there have been profiles in the NYT, the New Yorker and Time among others (sorry I don't have links b/c I read them all hard copy). if someone had told you 5 years ago that Vice was going to break into the most respectable bastions of mainstream U.S. journalism as a kind of semi-serious hipster alt news flagship you would have laughed, right? I have pretty mixed feelings about Vice news in general. the coverage is never in-depth and almost never strays (that I've seen) from a "woah dude check out how fucking crazy this shit is" tone, but they do cover TONS of stuff, and not just weird niche bullshit, that no big Western news organizations are covering, and seemingly w/o any ironic sneers, altho tons of cluelessness. the whole style is embodied, for anyone not familiar, in this documentary about post-civil war Liberia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRuSS0iiFyo). don't have HBO but I'm kind of curious to see the show turns out. best case scenario would probably be injecting some journalistic depth while keeping the go anywhere/cover anything style

dunno, what do other people think, if anything?

rubberdingyrapids
15-04-2013, 08:39 AM
ive been wondering about this myself. its been something theyve been building up to for quite a few years (there was that docu on the NYT where they had a conference with NYT reporters and a guy from vice - worth seeking out if you can). seems weird to see it trying to go respectable. tbh the latest issue which is a harmony korine special is like old vice and i actually prefer it, as its just vice being more honest and doing what they do best - voyeuristic pieces on the strange and weird and freakish (for better/worse). i couldnt finish the piece in the previous issue on bangladeshi sweatshops before that as the tone was just, like you say, cluelesss and still occasionally stuck with the old vice tone of hip distance which pissed me off. its good that theyre trying to move beyond superficial patronising hipster shit, but im still a bit worried that this might be where a lot of people get their information. the thing i often find from looking at the descriptions for their docus/short videos is that yeah, theyre covering international subjects other organisations are too lazy or uninterested to cover, but much of what they seem to be covering is the stuff that has a degree of titillation/shock/disgust/condescension about it, even when theres some concern mixed in with that.

Leo
17-04-2013, 04:52 PM
http://thump.vice.com/en_us

and they've just launched a sub-site: "the world's newest authority on electronic everything". at least there's a decent faltyDL mix.

Bangpuss
17-04-2013, 06:41 PM
They are money-grabbing scum worse than the Daily Mail. I should know, I had the displeasure of working for them once, and that almost ended in court when they tried to turn my byline into a hit-piece against me and then duck out of our expenses agreement.

Besides my personal gripes, what irks me the fact that alternative culture, as I know and love it, has always been about -- and should be about -- transcending judgemental attitudes. That's important for the people it's aimed at, the kids who are disaffected by their school, their society, etc. It gives them something to hold onto, a better path. Vice appropriates this alternative culture -- hardcore, punk, whatever -- and uses it to enforce a new kind of super-sneering judgemental attitude. As well as all the money-grubbing, Bush-voting crap, obviously.

It worries me that they're being regarded as a news source of any kind, let a lone an authoritative or -- worse -- alternative news source. They're awful. Let's not give them any more time of day. OUT!

baboon2004
18-04-2013, 01:05 AM
absolutely

continuum
18-04-2013, 08:41 PM
Vice is shit and I don't find it surprising at all that they are being mainstreamed.

They do occasionally do some good stuff though. This recent article on the night life where I live is spot on: http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/a-big-night-outat-the-end-of-western-civilisation

Mr. Tea
18-04-2013, 09:13 PM
Their piece about Deadmau5 and the American "EDM" scene exploding was pretty brilliant, too.

zhao
18-04-2013, 09:37 PM
who in the world besides Vice can bring us a piece like this:

http://www.vice.com/ground-zero/mali

it is a problem, but reportage lacking context is surely not a problem they alone have.

sorry you had a bad personal experience with whatever regional manager, bangpuss, but i've met some vice people including Shane, and they were all real people.

big tobacco and alcohol have been trying to give them A LOT of money for many, many years, and they never gave in, continually telling these corporations to FUCK OFF --- because Vice wants to do things their way, and only their way. And now they are doing it their way on HBO. awesome.

and don't know what you're going on about with vice being "judgemental"... metal heads are not "judgemental"? hiphop heads are not "judgemental"? is it not an intrinsic characteristic of subcultural groups to be "judgemental" and "elitist"? people on Dissensus don't sneer at people who listen to Diesel Boy or Skrillex?? GTFO.

IdleRich
19-04-2013, 12:35 AM
I kinda like Vice, just think you have to take it with a large pinch of salt.
One of the guys in my football team was working in marketing or sales or something for them a year or so ago and he was saying that it was becoming increasingly hard to get trendy brands to go for them because they were put off by things like the gross jar or whatever - and maybe their time had just gone. Might be no coincidence they go for mainstreaming now is what I'm saying.

rubberdingyrapids
19-04-2013, 12:42 PM
big tobacco and alcohol have been trying to give them A LOT of money for many, many years, and they never gave in, continually telling these corporations to FUCK OFF

doesnt mean all those stupid, borderline racist articles they used to print dont exist. i cant say i dont enjoy any part of vice, but thinking of it a kind of hipster daily mail makes some sense. im sure if i sat down with DM writers, i would think they were 'real people' (whatever that means) too.

zhao
19-04-2013, 01:35 PM
doesnt mean all those stupid, borderline racist articles they used to print dont exist. i cant say i dont enjoy any part of vice, but thinking of it a kind of hipster daily mail makes some sense. im sure if i sat down with DM writers, i would think they were 'real people' (whatever that means) too.

the fact of Vice's continued and continuing refusal of big tobacco and big alcohol money was brought up to counter the accusation that they are " money-grabbing scum". In fact, not only that, they have refused mainstream TV offers many times in the last 10 years, until, presumably, the right one came along which allowed them total creative freedom -- from where i stand, that's called INTEGRITY. (even though a part of that integrity is used to defend things like "gross jar" lololol :D)

which "borderline racist" stuff do you mean? i am very sensitive to overt, covert, structural, institutional, wholly normalized, and every other kind of racism in the media, and the times i have found Vice articles to be racist is pretty damn close to 0.

nearly EVERY hollywood narrative is told from a structurally racist POV - I do not see that perspective in Vice.

padraig (u.s.)
19-04-2013, 02:40 PM
so I thought about this a bit more. 1st, just tbc when I say "semi-serious hipster alt news flagship" I don't mean that's how I personally regard Vice, I'm referring to the way it's coming over/being presented in establishment media.


reportage lacking context is surely not a problem they alone have

absolutely true. the difference is, usually it's from shortcomings and not intentional. Vice makes it an ethos. the cluelessness is totally conscious and an integral part of their style. it's part of the lack of personal distance from the coverage that most journalists impose. tbf sometimes that (along w/$$$) grants access that serious journalists couldn't get but it also transforms coverage of issues into gawking at crazy shit.

now much indy journalism, like conscious hip hop, is staid and painfully earnest. in a perfect world that wouldn't matter, but unfortunately it does. Vice has sex appeal. like a somewhat less stupid Kony 2012, it attracts 1st World 18-35s who otherwise wouldn't pay attention to news. at the same time it's covering things big traditional media outlets can't or won't (BBC being the exception), for whatever many reasons, cover. so far, so good.

the thing is, journalism is not like art where inspired anti-professionalism can be good. I'm not demanding everyone get M.A.s from Columbia J-school but having standards is a good thing. accuracy, context, depth, are good things. I don't see why Vice can't hire real journalists - the kinds of freelancers (like the Canadian guy who guides around Liberia) and/or local journalists - to do actual work instead of JUST sending Shane or whoever somewhere to be like "hey! we are 1st world white hipsters in this Otherly crazy place! behold its crazy Otherness/dangerousness!". it's not like that would turn Vice into CNN.

but ultimately if they want to be serious they'll take the steps to do so. if they don't they won't.


alternative culture, as I know and love it

you have rose-tinted glasses my friend. I'm not saying there aren't always people fighting the good fight, and that underground culture doesn't save kids all the time (or at least open new worlds to them), but as quick as something underground exists there's someone angling to make a buck off it, more sinisterly or less: Haight Independent Proprietors, ecstasy gangsters in the Summer of Love, (some) indie record label owners, Suicide Girls. Vice is hardly the worst of the lot, and least they've always been open about it.

Mr. Tea
19-04-2013, 02:44 PM
With regard to booze/baccy sponsorship, isn't it possible that they would consider it harmful to their bad-ass 'alternative' image to suck the corporate cock, while at the same time having no compunction about ripping off their contributors?

padraig (u.s.)
19-04-2013, 03:01 PM
nearly EVERY hollywood narrative is told from a structurally racist POV - I do not see that perspective in Vice.

on the one hand, I agree with you. VICE is like an insult comic who uses tons of racial/gay/etc slurs in an act but is firmly anti-racist/sexist/etc, and is at least in some way using those words to depower them Lenny Bruce style, tho I don't know that distinction is always clear to readers, or even writers. whereas most mainstream things are exactly the opposite where that structural shit is all firmly in place but at the same time there's a fake P.C. code firmly in place, i.e. where oppression is reduced to making a public apology to NAACP or GLAAD.

this is the problem with Vice news tho: the first time I went to Mexico City it seemed like just this endless dystopian sprawl and I made a joke that the end of the world would begin w/a black hole opening up underneath it and swallowing it whole. one of the Mexican punks I was hanging out with was like "that's such a 1st world, gringo, bourgeois thing to say". and he was right. to see it as just an Other place. every single Vice documentary is like the mindset of that joke repeated endlessly. it is nice that they make zero pretense to journalistic "objectivity" but it will never not come off as clueless asshole hipsters go to wacky places.

(also, ta fuck with that "real people" nonsense tho. come on, you're better than that)

padraig (u.s.)
19-04-2013, 03:08 PM
in one sense Vice is in the fine Werner Herzog (Errol Morris too) tradition of making documentaries about weird shit. but that dude is always thinking about what he's doing, what he's saying. there's one great quote (in the doc about him eating his shoe I think - Les Blank RIP btw) where he says he's "working on creating a new grammar of images". now, we can't all be as deep or genuinely idiosyncratic as Werner Herzog. but in Vice there is absolutely nothing going beneath the surface. I mean, the guy cares enough to go to Mali or Pakistan or wherever and empathize with the people there but somehow doesn't care enough to do a competent job of showing their stories. this bothers me more than it should b/c it seems like such a missed opportunity.

Sick Boy
19-04-2013, 08:08 PM
e racist" stuff do you mean? i am very sensitive to overt, covert, structural, institutional, wholly normalized, and every other kind of racism in the media, and the times i have found Vice articles to be racist is pretty damn close to 0.


VICE Magazine got too much for me with this one in particular:
http://www.vice.com/read/hand-v13n10

TLDR: It's a guide to the gang signs of the Herschelwood Crips, complete with photos and illustrations.

I am amazed that Zhao in particular doesn't have a golden race card in his deck set aside especially for these ridiculous bobo motherfuckers.

nomos
19-04-2013, 10:19 PM
They had a rep as sleazebags when they were starting out in Montreal. Nothing about their free rag or anything they've done since has ever made me think otherwise. They capitalized on casual misogyny and racism, and apparently they've built an empire catering to privileged bro-ness. They might do the odd half decent news-like report but that stuff is still their bread and butter.

Top story today at Vice.com:

http://i37.tinypic.com/10sep9i.gif

zhao
20-04-2013, 04:37 AM
^^ YES. You know who else are "sleazebags" that "capitalized on casual misogyny and racism"? MIT Press and Semiotext(e).

http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1289697846l/243991.jpg

http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/i-love-dick

fuck these women haters and their women hating, money making schemes!

:D

zhao
20-04-2013, 05:00 AM
and you know what is wrong with the gang signs piece? absolutely nothing.

if you people think that and the "cum guzzlers" article are "racist" and "misogynist" then i'm sorry, you don't know much about racism and misogyny.

There is 10 times as much racism and misogyny in any random 30 minutes of public American TV than in every issue of Vice put together.

zhao
20-04-2013, 05:18 AM
y'all need to read this again, because it's spot on:


VICE is like an insult comic who uses tons of racial/gay/etc slurs in an act but is firmly anti-racist/sexist/etc, and is at least in some way using those words to depower them Lenny Bruce style, tho I don't know that distinction is always clear to readers, or even writers. whereas most mainstream things are exactly the opposite where that structural shit is all firmly in place but at the same time there's a fake P.C. code firmly in place, i.e. where oppression is reduced to making a public apology to NAACP or GLAAD.

but this next bit:


in one sense Vice is in the fine Werner Herzog (Errol Morris too) tradition of making documentaries about weird shit. but that dude is always thinking about what he's doing, what he's saying. there's one great quote (in the doc about him eating his shoe I think - Les Blank RIP btw) where he says he's "working on creating a new grammar of images". now, we can't all be as deep or genuinely idiosyncratic as Werner Herzog. but in Vice there is absolutely nothing going beneath the surface. I mean, the guy cares enough to go to Mali or Pakistan or wherever and empathize with the people there but somehow doesn't care enough to do a competent job of showing their stories. this bothers me more than it should b/c it seems like such a missed opportunity.

comparing Vice to Herzog is surely giving them too much credit!! ;)

baboon2004
20-04-2013, 11:50 AM
on the one hand, I agree with you. VICE is like an insult comic who uses tons of racial/gay/etc slurs in an act but is firmly anti-racist/sexist/etc, and is at least in some way using those words to depower them Lenny Bruce style, tho I don't know that distinction is always clear to readers, or even writers. whereas most mainstream things are exactly the opposite where that structural shit is all firmly in place but at the same time there's a fake P.C. code firmly in place, i.e. where oppression is reduced to making a public apology to NAACP or GLAAD.

This is really interesting. Not specific about VICE, but I think the vast majority of those insult comics are arseholes, who just use a thin veneer of 'irony' to disguise the fact they just want to be free to use those slurs, but simultaneously pretend that they are somehow 'subverting' them. Can't count (well I can, but I mean that there have been a lot of occasions) the occasions where I've noticed this recently, to the point where I've virtually given up on comedy.

No doubt there are some clever people who are genuinely attempting subversion, but there are an awful lot of bigots hanging on to their coat-tails and pretending to be 'edgy'.

baboon2004
20-04-2013, 12:00 PM
and you know what is wrong with the gang signs piece? absolutely nothing.

if you people think that and the "cum guzzlers" article are "racist" and "misogynist" then i'm sorry, you don't know much about racism and misogyny.


you have to expand upon this with an argument as to why you think this, c'mon. I agree with you that a lot of mainstream TV might be even more dubious, but that is no argument in itself.

I'm also unclear as to why, as a man, you've positioned yourself as a spokesperson on misogyny... I didn't think the 'cum guzzling' article in question was that bad either to be honest, but telling other people what they do or don't know is a bad look, especially on a forum which lots of (ok some...ok, a few!) people read.

baboon2004
20-04-2013, 12:19 PM
In terms of coverage of race and music, I thought this DJ Rupture quote was interesting:

"Many music critics still believe in magical black people: 'Oh, they're making crazy, avant-garde music in Chicago, and it's called juke'," he says. "But at the same time, the privilege of being a black man with a middle-class background at the start of the 21st century is that I can do whatever I want: it doesn't have to feel representative. I was nerdier than people wanted DJ /rupture to be." They wanted a thug? "Yeah, which is the holy grail: 'It's avant-garde but it's scary at the same time!'"

zhao
20-04-2013, 12:20 PM
come on. Accusing VICE, of all magazines and TV shows out there, of sexism and misogyny is worse than something the Internet Wimmin Mobs (http://www.newstatesman.com/voices/2013/03/theres-no-point-online-feminism-if-its-exclusive-mean-girls-club) would do.

Anyone who actually thinks VICE is sexist or racist is entirely out of touch with reality, does not understand the function of sarcasm or irony, and has zero sense of humor. that's all i have to say.

baboon2004
20-04-2013, 12:35 PM
That's your view, fine. But to pretend that VICE is so far from being dubious, and that anyone who think so is 'out of touch with reality', is disingenuous. You clearly must be able to see why some people would have problems with some of the articles cited - by all means present an argument against them/in defence of VICE, but don't use 'out of touch with reality' putdowns without explanation. There's an argument to be had here.

And the 'no sense of humour', 'they were being ironic' argument is one that doesn't wash, because, and I think you'll prob agree on this, it is the exact same one that is routinely used in the service of so much bigotry.

e/y
20-04-2013, 12:35 PM
zhao are you joking linking to that bullshit NS piece (which was written b/c their editor and other prominent white feminists dismissed the importance of intersectionality in feminism)? and imho the people who you dismiss as the "Internet Wimmin Mob" have a much clearer understanding of and right to define what is or isn't sexist or misogynistic than two men like you or I.

IdleRich
20-04-2013, 01:37 PM
"if you people think that and the "cum guzzlers" article are "racist" and "misogynist" then i'm sorry, you don't know much about racism and misogyny."
I'm not sure if Nommos was saying that the cum-guzzling article was sexist, just that it was horrible frat-boy shit.

zhao
20-04-2013, 05:31 PM
pretty sure he was giving it as an example of misogyny

crackerjack
20-04-2013, 05:34 PM
zhao are you joking linking to that bullshit NS piece (which was written b/c their editor and other prominent white feminists dismissed the importance of intersectionality in feminism)? and imho the people who you dismiss as the "Internet Wimmin Mob" have a much clearer understanding of and right to define what is or isn't sexist or misogynistic than two men like you or I.

So if gender trumps all in this, how come you're dismissing the NS piece, which is also written by a feminist woman?

nomos
20-04-2013, 09:00 PM
pretty sure he was giving it as an example of misogyny
No.


just that it was horrible frat-boy shit.
Yes.

Sectionfive
20-04-2013, 10:20 PM
online wimmin mob is twitter intersectionality-core now, keep up

e/y
21-04-2013, 10:33 AM
So if gender trumps all in this...

that's not really what I said, is it?

crackerjack
21-04-2013, 11:31 AM
that's not really what I said, is it?

You dismissed one feminist writer's piece as "bullshit" while in the same sentence suggesting Zhao has no business criticising other feminists because he, like you, is a man. Do explain how that works.

Sectionfive
21-04-2013, 04:29 PM
Think the consensus on the NS was bullshit in fairness. In a long line of bullshit pieces on the matter. And the assumption readers are already aware of the who while not naming name might as well be an essay-length subtweet. Not least as the article is about cliqueishness, perceived or otherwise. There are no membership cards in the feminist club as far as I am aware. Like if a man has a point of disagreement it's just a disagreement but a feminist is somehow excluding her.

A few years ago people were writing these pieces asking where all the young feminists were. Now they are talking back on social media and the same people are shouting stop silencing me, when all most people are asking is to take other considerations into account. Part of it even feels like what Slothrop was saying about vinyl DJs and cultural capital manouevres, only with the double of columnists having to get used to two way traffic and much of highlighting they may not be always as right as they thought. Especially if they considered themselves very much on the right side up until now.

crackerjack
21-04-2013, 05:10 PM
A few years ago people were writing these pieces asking where all the young feminists were. Now they are talking back on social media and the same people are shouting stop silencing me, when all most people are asking is to take other considerations into account.

From what I've seen these "other considerations" mean habitually qualifying every sentence you write with so many sub-clauses and let's-not-forgets while crosschecking with this month's dictionary of the acceptable terms (exhibit A: the blogger who called Caitlin Moran "transphobic" for saying that if you put your hands in your pants and can feel a vagina you're a woman) as to reduce professional journalism to the same standard of unreadable bollocks as most of the academia that inspires these people. Plus, tbh, many of them seem a bit fucking mad.

Sectionfive
21-04-2013, 05:37 PM
That's a bit of caricature though. I dunno, there is really nothing impenetrably academic about it. When people blindly defend columnists or deride concepts they seem to forget every other day spent explaining why things are sexist and the reaction they themselves get.

crackerjack
21-04-2013, 05:56 PM
That's a bit of caricature though. I dunno, there is really nothing impenetrably academic about it. When people blindly defend columnists or deride concepts they seem to forget every other day spent explaining why things are sexist and the reaction they themselves get.

Strikes me there's a lot more blindness (and none of that ablist talk here, please ;) ) on the part of those attacking them. For instance, the spat over Suzanne Moore began because she used the term transexual rather than transgender and was called out for transphobia. I'll admit she didn't cover herself in glory with some of her responses, but if I had to put up with that level of self-righteous self-indulgent sniping I'd have given a lot worse.

Sectionfive
21-04-2013, 06:07 PM
Was more to it then that with Moore but I agree all sides could approach each other better.
What's happened though is people are conflating the behaviour of critics with validity of the concept. A mistake imo.

crackerjack
21-04-2013, 06:12 PM
What's happened though is people are conflating the behaviour of critics with validity of the concept. A mistake imo.

Understandable, though. The absolute last thing the left in general needs is yet more reasons to play language police, IMO.

Sectionfive
21-04-2013, 06:13 PM
a lot of bruised egos etc

Sectionfive
21-04-2013, 06:16 PM
Understandable, though. The absolute last thing the left in general needs is yet more reasons to play language police, IMO.

Don't think anyone is playing language police though, another caricature of the criticism. Loads of people are writing and speaking with no "mob" ire.


Best thing for the left or anyone else is to tackle these issues.

padraig (u.s.)
21-04-2013, 06:42 PM
awful lot of bigots

so it's overkill to approach it as a de facto post-everything pop deconstruction thing, OK. I didn't really mean it an organized, conscious setup anyway, just that I think most of the offensive stuff is self-aware and not mindless. when you reach a mass audience with a style like that inevitably a % of them won't get it and at a certain point it will cross over and become the thing it's satirizing but that's hardly a problem unique to Vice. that very thing basically drove Dave Chappelle crazy, I mean.

anyway tho, I really shoulda been more clear in OP tho cos I'm def not interested in just discussing VICE. haven't read the mag in years, rarely if ever look at website, it just don't interest me. plus, who the fuck wants to discuss Vice? it is what it is and it has been for what, nearing 20 years now right? whatever you think of it you think of it.

crackerjack
21-04-2013, 06:50 PM
Best thing for the left or anyone else is to tackle these issues.

Great, cos nothing works like another bout of infighting and Judean People's Frontism (and yes, there's another caricature for you).

Sectionfive
21-04-2013, 06:58 PM
Better then letting it fester imo. Surely even more important to address this stuff on your own side then the other.

padraig (u.s.)
21-04-2013, 07:08 PM
this news thing is its own thing. I stumbled on it from YT recs. probably plenty of people watching their docs never even heard of the magazine prior. and it's def NOT just "the odd half-decent news report". for one Vice has been doing this for many years, it's not a new cash grab or something. and there are definitely many documentarists, indy journalists out there doing it better and/or weirder, deeper, whatever but who is covering the same breadth in the same format with the same resources? that last is most important, since Vice has the $ to send people to all these places but also the ability that CNN etc don't to market it. I'm not passing a value judgment on that as good or bad, it's just an interesting development. it says as much anyway about mainstream news that HBO is now willing to give them a show to do their frat hipster gonzo thing.


comparing Vice to Herzog is surely giving them too much credit

obviously not comparing them in any imaginable terms of quality, just using Herzog as the par exellence example of being able to contextualize and humanize even the most seemingly disparate, alien topics while still maintaining their own unique weirdness. the ideal to strive for.

padraig (u.s.)
21-04-2013, 07:15 PM
and there's surely problems with it, OK, but a lot of talented people do media things on the Internet and most of it doesn't serve any purpose beyond recreation. which is fine. but otoh, Vice doing the news isn't the worse thing ever is all I mean. it took Jon Stewart a while to get his act together too.

tbh I think Dissensus is kinda past the point of being able to have interesting multifaceted discussions about anything that isn't the latest micropermutation of nuum music.


Was more to it then that with Moore

yeah, O/T but the original shit she said was def legitimately heinous, even if the argument after devolved on all sides

trza
21-04-2013, 07:49 PM
Do they still have those photos taken on the streets of New York or Toronto/Montreal with snarky comments about the way people dress or look? They don't take money from certain people but they sell full page ads to American Apparel and their CEO who has a way of being sued for sexual harassment over and over again. Its hard to care either way about Vice but their market cap for a potential stock offering is in the one billion dollar range.

The free distribution model of the alt weekly, and the local American alt weekly newspaper has thrived over the past decade. Village Voice and Boston Phoenix are the exceptions, bought out by business types who tried to get more money out of them and went broke. Most free alt weekly papers gleefully print about the local newspapers declining subscription figures, publish rumors and gossip about the editors and work environments.

e/y
22-04-2013, 01:09 PM
You dismissed one feminist writer's piece as "bullshit" while in the same sentence suggesting Zhao has no business criticising other feminists because he, like you, is a man.

No, again that's not what I did. The NS piece is about the way in which discourse within feminism takes place - and I think it is bullshit written with a very specific agenda. At the same time I didn't dismiss the writer as a whole or her feminism (something many women have done, but then it is not my place to do the same).

I think Zhao can certainly disagree or criticise feminists (w/o getting mainsplainy), whereas what he did - taking it upon himself (rather than the "Internet Wimmin Mob") to arbitrate what is or isn't sexism and said that anyone who thinks that some of Vice's content sexist is out of touch, and then mocked a large and diverse group of people (essentially dismissing their feminism), is not on.


Plus, tbh, many of them seem a bit fucking mad.

Nice of you to put it out there where you really stand.


Better then letting it fester imo. Surely even more important to address this stuff on your own side then the other.

100% this

Mr. Tea
22-04-2013, 05:35 PM
Nice of you to put it out there where you really stand.


I don't think it's exactly fair to imply that someone is part of the Evil Forces of Reactionary Evil just because they don't uncritically agree with everything any soi-disant liberal/progressive/radical has ever said. Not least because radicals often make statements that flatly contradict the statements of other radicals.

With regards to the New Statesman, left-wing language-policing, Disprivilege Top Trumps and all that, I'm reminded of a piece I read there a few months back, where some guy was saying the Left needs to try and rise above its chronic Popular Judean Front-ism and concentrate on fighting the good fight, rather than just meticulously scouring each other's language for the slightest hint of unexamined privilege and leaping on it. Then in the comments below the article, one commentator branded another "transphobic" for using the word "transsexuals" rather than the phrase "transsexual people". I mean seriously, FFS - how can anyone not see that this is precisely the sort of pointless, sub-atomic hair-splitting that the author of the piece was writing about, and which achieves nothing other than giving the person making it a sense of being more correct than the no doubt horribly privileged person they're attacking?

e/y
22-04-2013, 08:53 PM
I don't think it's exactly fair to imply that someone is part of the Evil Forces of Reactionary Evil just because they don't uncritically agree with everything any soi-disant liberal/progressive/radical has ever said.

???

I quoted a specific part of his comment - IMO if someone dismisses a bunch of people as "mad" and tries to diminish transphobic shit from Moran et al, well then they're being a bit of a dick.

As to the usual line trotted out by the liberal commentariat when one of them is under criticism (or as the SWP did when it was revealed that they covered up allegations of rape, or the exact thing that centre-left parties do to deflect attention from themselves) to "remember who the Real Enemy is" - well for me the real enemy are sexists, transphobes, racists, etc, and I don't want part in any sort of leftist movement that chooses to ignore the oppression of a minority group in order to "concentrate" on some 'Good, Big Fight'.

You and others label it is as petty infighting over insignificant words, but what Burchill, Moran, etc have been criticised for has not been anything petty, certainly not to the people it was aimed at and whom it affects (and a reminder that they were criticised largely by those very people). Burchill was the most egregious and blatant example of transphobic hatespeech, but even something like Moran writing that anyone who "has a vagina is a woman" (I paraphrase) specifically excludes trans* people. Or to take your example of supposedly "pointless hairsplitting" - substitute "blacks" or "gays" for "transexuals" and see what the reaction would be like.

crackerjack
23-04-2013, 12:12 AM
Moran writing that anyone who "has a vagina is a woman" (I paraphrase) specifically excludes trans* people. Or to take your example of supposedly "pointless hairsplitting" - substitute "blacks" or "gays" for "transexuals" and see what the reaction would be like.

It excludes by implication about 0.00001% (I guess) of the female population for the sake of keeping her writing sharp & pithy. If you feel you can't be part of a left that refuses to butcher good writing for the sake of bogus self-congratulatory inclusivity, that's fine by me - it sounds like we're better off without you.

As for the "a bit mad"... one instance I particularly have in mind runs roughly like this (I'm paraphrasing from memory - I won't link as I genuinely think the person concerned is a bit unhinged but you can find it via Helen Lewis's posts)

Person A: Why are people praising the racist [person x]?
Lewis: What has she said that's racist? Do you have a link?
A: Oh look who's leaping to the defence of the racist!
Lewis: I'm not, I'm just asking for the evidence.
Person B (friend of A): PoC don't forget racism when they see it. Stop demanding evidence.

and so on and so on

People like that don't need indulging, they need taking aside by a good friend and being told to get a grip.

edit:I'm not defending Burchill's hate piece, which was of an entirely different nature and, tbh, likening hers to Moran's is way more dickish than anything I've written here.

UFO over easy
23-04-2013, 01:14 AM
when you write about things that are outside of your direct experience, and you are called out by those you are writing about (for? on behalf of?), it doesn't seem like it should be a big deal to hold your hands up and engage with those responses without having a tantrum. the policing of people's anger seems like more of a problem to me than the policing of language... losing a few pithy one-liners here and there doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice even for a writer like moran

Mr. Tea
23-04-2013, 06:41 AM
You and others label it is as petty infighting over insignificant words, but what Burchill, Moran, etc have been criticised for has not been anything petty, certainly not to the people it was aimed at and whom it affects (and a reminder that they were criticised largely by those very people). Burchill was the most egregious and blatant example of transphobic hatespeech, but even something like Moran writing that anyone who "has a vagina is a woman" (I paraphrase) specifically excludes trans* people. Or to take your example of supposedly "pointless hairsplitting" - substitute "blacks" or "gays" for "transexuals" and see what the reaction would be like.

OK, so Moran thinks there is a distinction between trans-women and cis-women, which I don't think is outrageously unreasonable in itself, and some anonymous internet user isn't au fait with the latest up-to-the-minute way to refer to a certain group of people (as decided by whoever it is that decides these things). Is that, in all honesty, demonstrative of a literal fear and hatred of trans people?

I know that what Burchill said was much more objectively objectionable, but that's hardly surprising.

e/y
23-04-2013, 10:16 AM
"and some anonymous internet user isn't au fait with the latest up-to-the-minute way to refer to a certain group of people"

Except that's not what it is, is it? I don't get why you try to mischaracterise/diminish it in this way - no one is asking people to have Gender Trouble memorised by heart, it's an issue of a few basic, commonly-accepted terms. crackerjack's defence that it somehow makes writing unwieldy or aesthetically poor is simply bizarre (even if it did, so what? you value prose over people? then fuck you, to paraphrase Zizek). It's like the notion of self-criticism doesn't even enter some people's heads.

Again, if a broadhseet writer used inappropriate language to refer to ethnic minorities they would be rightfully pulled up for it, but it is still ok to shit over trans* people.

And Moran wasn't making a distinction b/w cis women and trans* women, her statement implied that trans* women aren't women at all. Are you fine with that?

Completely agree with Ben.


edit:I'm not defending Burchill's hate piece, which was of an entirely different nature and, tbh, likening hers to Moran's is way more dickish than anything I've written here.

Except that I didn't say they were exactly the same, did I? In fact I explicitly said otherwise. But just because someone has done something worse, doesn't make the other thing ok.

You're welcome to your New Statesman/Guardian brand of liberal "leftist" btw.

crackerjack
23-04-2013, 11:07 AM
You're welcome to your New Statesman/Guardian brand of liberal "leftist" btw.

Why thank you. And best of your luck with your cult-stud identity politics. I'm sure you'll be a campus smash.

UFO over easy
23-04-2013, 11:51 AM
haha right on man, get a job e/y! take your ideas about how to treat people with respect back to university where they belong! extremist!

Mr. Tea
23-04-2013, 01:35 PM
And Moran wasn't making a distinction b/w cis women and trans* women, her statement implied that trans* women aren't women at all. Are you fine with that?

Well I'm not a woman and I'm not transsexual, and I'm also not a psychologist, a sociologist, a biologist, a professor of gender studies or anyone else who might be qualified to say who is and who isn't a woman, if anyone can categorically be said to be qualified to decide that.

If you take the view that anyone who feels themselves to be a woman, is a woman, then sure, owning a vagina is not a prerequisite to womanhood. Caitlin Moran thinks there is more to gender than a matter of personal opinion. You think she's wrong, and I'm sure you could present a good argument as to why you think that. I just think it's a bit of a leap to go from this to the conclusion that she must therefore hate transsexual people.

crackerjack
23-04-2013, 01:38 PM
Well I'm not a woman and I'm not transsexual, and I'm also not a psychologist, a sociologist, a biologist, a professor of gender studies or anyone else who might be qualified to say who is and who isn't a woman, if anyone can categorically be said to be qualified to decide that.

If you take the view that anyone who feels themselves to be a woman, is a woman, then sure, owning a vagina is not a prerequisite to womanhood. Caitlin Moran thinks there is more to gender than a matter of personal opinion. You think she's wrong, and I'm sure you could present an argument as to why she's wrong. I just think it's a bit of a leap to go from this to the conclusion that she must therefore hate transsexual people.

Co-sign this. And throw in a big LOL at people claiming this is about showing people respect when the default position of one side seems to be accusing others of bigotry or sympathising with racism on flimsy, or even non-existent, evidence.

UFO over easy
23-04-2013, 02:16 PM
the moran scrap was similar to many others, in that the initial criticism she faced was, all things considered, pretty measured. it snowballed following her reluctance to engage with that critcism and with the community of people affected by her piece, the closing of ranks and the disgusting, self-congratulatory, sneering sympathy offered by her colleagues who felt bullied and victimised by a "mob" - it seems likely that they were in fact just not used to having their senses of themselves as good and moral questioned in any small way, as if it's not completely normal for people to make mistakes and for people not to be perfectly considerate at all times. i would say that it is an example of widespread and normalised transphobia, but getting into a semantic argument about it here seems pointless - it's damaging regardless, and i would expect more of people who spend their lives thinking and writing professionally

these things do get out of hand, for sure - but i think people have a right to their anger, and there are bigger problems than the hurt feelings of broadsheet journalists

Mr. Tea
23-04-2013, 03:25 PM
I think part of the problem is that Twitter is a medium perfectly suited to dashing off heat-of-the-moment rejoinders and jibes, rather than measured, considered responses. That's not to say people should be able to get away with saying absolutely anything, of course, but it does perhaps mean that when people feel themselves to be under attack, we shouldn't hold a response made on Twitter up to the same standards we'd hold an article of a few thousand words that they've had a couple of days to think about.

Sectionfive
23-04-2013, 04:30 PM
It's not twitter though. If there is any problem with medium and disproportionate reactions it's people with an audience of millions refusing to take the most simple considerations on board. With journalism suffering both economic slump and collapse of / changing business model it's probably difficult to separate one from the other. So while already having your work and livelihood devalued the latest affront only adds to the siege mentality. With everything else in meltdown having your right on credentials challenged from below is sending them over the edge. Most sharply if that is what you trade on.

Think how many articles you used to see flat out rubbish the internet. Easier then accepting a change and engaging.

droid
24-04-2013, 03:50 PM
5 pages of VICE and no mention of

http://www.jameshyman.com/blog/archives/sugarape.jpg

?

trza
25-04-2013, 10:30 PM
Ace of Base's Secret Nazi Past in Noisey is based on a documentary released in 1997, a cd reissued in 1998 and a youtube video uploaded in 2011.

Bangpuss
29-04-2013, 07:48 PM
Sorry I didn't check this thread before it went haywire. Yeah, I agree with whoever brought up the Jizz Smoothie post or whatever it was, and IdleRich's comments regarding. As someone who furiously refutes most liberal hairsplitting relating to prejudice, political correctness and other language police-ish tendencies, that's not really what's at issue here. It's frat-boy bullshit whose inclusion in the magazine/on the site exemplifies a side of its character you fans will try to scrub up as irony or subversion, when in fact it's just the kind of thing that wouldn't even make it to a Loaded magazine pitch meeting. Not because it's too subversive or ironic, or even misogynistic (although it may be that, we'll never know unless we're actually inside the minds of the people who made/approved it with an objective stethoscope -- hence the danger of labelling anything or anyone misogynistic when we don't actually know scientifically the motivation).

No, it's a lads mag. They have the budget to go to Mexico and North Korea, and they've strung along some fairly decent people for the ride on these foreign excursions, who've written what appears to be fairly good shit. They probably paid them well, which is a striking contrast to the many people who contribute to their project for nothing or pittance. But you know, the Daily Mail taps out a real killer of an article every once in a while. Yes, about liberal topics and sympathetically too. But none of us read the occasional decent article in the Daily Mail and proclaim it to be some kind of Jacobin proxy to our liberal debauchery, do we? No, because we know better, and we can see the forest beyond the occasional tree. The Mail has become shorthand for a certain kind of curtain-twitching bigotry we have all come to loathe, and rightly so. But Vice seems to get away with a similar level of judgmental, borderline bigoted crap, because it's read not by your mum or some Wiltshire homophone but by some of your friends using its Dos and Don'ts thing as some kind of arbiter of cool. Or if not cool-o-meter, a thing it's at least OK to laugh at while scorning the shallow, small-minded fodder the Mail throws up when it does an expose of a celebrity not wearing much make-up.

BTW the thing about 'transcending judgmental attitudes' wasn't an observation of the way alternative culture has come to operate. I'd say its almost parochial, tribal divisions are inspired and perpetuated by the likes of Vice, though, who profit from every douchebag in a Minor Threat t-shirt who scorns others for not fitting into the 'subculture'. But what I mean by 'transcending judgmental attitudes' is that's historically been the goal of any dude who identifies with a traditionally persecuted group. Now Vice is taking the signs and pointing them back at those very people. The very best of intentions are being co-opted into the regime with the worst.

Over and out.

Patrick Swayze
29-04-2013, 08:58 PM
in fairness I've never really seen the "dos and donts" section as malicious. I've always taken the fact that it'd be hard to put actual parameters on what is considered a 'do' and what is considered a 'dont' to mean that the real aim of the column is self-deprecation i.e. don't we all look ridiculous and yet we still assign notions of 'right' and 'wrong' to how we dress (absurd in itself)

the whole thing strikes me as very tongue in cheek

I've certainly never clicked on it and felt genuine contempt for any of the ppl pictured. And we all judge people's appearance, in one way or another based on our personal set of values, in our heads and among our friends anyway.

zhao
30-04-2013, 04:13 PM
^ what a load of crap bangpuss.

i have never met a single girl who finds Vice offensive or misogynist. and i have quite a few feminist theory types in my circles who reads Kristeva. instead, they all either like it and read it regularly, or find the occasional story funny or curious.

besides, for every "lad's story" like "Who Gives The Best Head, Girls or Gays" or whatever, there is a "Guide to Eating Pussy" article written by a girl.

Vice is one of the most un-sexist, un-classist, and resolutely anti-racist publications in existence.

IdleRich
30-04-2013, 04:33 PM
Again, I'm interpreting for you Zhao but I read "lads" as meaning "lads and ladettes" of the frat boy kind. It seems you're determined to read every criticism of Vice as saying it's misogynist when really they're just saying it's crap.

Bangpuss
30-04-2013, 06:43 PM
Jeepers, Zhao, how are we supposed to respect your opinion when you keep criticising us for stuff we didn't say?

I specifically said I don't like the liberal hair-splitting and labelling stuff as misogynistic when there's no clear way of knowing the intentions of the authors/editors, which we don't. You could be right: they're die-hard subversives blah blah whatever. That still doesn't make the Gross Jar, or Do's and Don'ts, or the Guide to Eating Pussy (whatever the gender of its author) particularly good. I'm specifically saying it's mostly a bowl of piss outside of the sexual/racial politics. OUTSIDE, BEYOND, BESIDES. I don't find the Gross Jar misogynistic, I just find it incredibly dumb.

The comparisons to the Daily Mail, I think, are particularly apt because the one thing everyone loves/hates about the Mail is its predictability. It dwells on a few select topics to get its hits/readers and reports them sensationally and selaciously. House prices, immigrants, etc. Well guess what, Vice does exactly the same, only with drugs, guns, sex, the far right and terrorism. Sure, there's other stuff, just as the Mail does feature other content, some of which isn't bad. But not much. Let's have a look at what's on the front page of the site today, and see if we can find anything that fits that description, shall we?

Would You Have Sex with a Distant Family Member?
"I'd say 100 percent no."

The Syrian Electronic Army Talk About Hacking the Guardian and Their Obama Bomb Hoax
"They almost crashed the stock market by telling everyone Obama had been bombed."

What Do Terrorists and Tesco Have in Common?
"They both use logos to get their "brand message" across."

Jonathan Hobin Re-Creates the World's Most Infamous Tragedies with Children
"An interview and some exclusive photos of kids re-creating tragedies."

Hanging Out in Benghazi's Car Boot Arms Market
"Where grenades and Kalashnikovs are sold next to herbs and counterfeit t-shirts."

Internet Psychonauts Try All the Drugs You Don't Want to Try
"Which is handy, because some of them sound horrible."

Would You Take MDMA for Therapy?
"Are you selling it? No, I wouldn't take it."

Hungary Is Destroying Itself from the Inside
"The far-right's on the rise and the state's getting oppressive."

See what I mean?

padraig (u.s.)
30-04-2013, 07:43 PM
don't share zhao's active appreciation of vice but I'm def w/him philosophically


they're die-hard subversives blah blah whatever

that's not what was said. I'm tired of repeating myself tho. you can read what I said 2 pages ago if you want.


dwells on a few select topics to get its hits/readers and reports them sensationally and selaciously...Vice does exactly the same

news flash: EVERYONE DOES THIS ON THE INTERNET. sorry for the caps but thats one of the dumbest criticisms I've ever read. The Guardian, The Atlantic, CNN, you name it. every major pop culture website, every major news site, produces click bait. it's not somehow less noble when Vice does it. some places only produce click bait (or aggregate other peoples click bait), some also produce some worthwhile content.

also if Vice's click bait gets people to read semi-serious content about Syria or Liberia or etc then more power to them


'transcending judgmental attitudes'...historically been the goal of any dude who identifies with a traditionally persecuted group

continue to smh in wonder at your extremely rosy and selective view of "alternative culture"

dudes "identifying w/traditionally persecuted groups" has done at least (if not more) as much expropriation and self-interest as anything vice has ever done. also, since it's no longer like, 1981, thankfully self-righteous earnestness isn't only the only way to be anti-sexist/racist/etc.

padraig (u.s.)
30-04-2013, 07:44 PM
you're determined to read every criticism of Vice as saying it's misogynist

that's not what he said but more patronizing interpretation, please

padraig (u.s.)
30-04-2013, 07:47 PM
yeah it was definitely a mistake to bring this up in the first place

Bangpuss
01-05-2013, 09:50 AM
yeah it was definitely a mistake to bring this up in the first place

A mistake because we have a differing opinion? I don't understand why you'd join a debate at all if opposing views make you wish you hadn't bothered.

The thing about click-bait or whatever you want to call it, though: You're going to have to do a better job than simply saying 'everybody does it'. True, all publications have areas of interest they focus on more than others. But Vice's obsession with drugs, guns, sex and the far right isn't the same as, say, the Guardian's focus on social security or the health service over, say, immigration or other nationalist issues. It's also about the way they're covered. Sometimes they do get it right, but mostly I think it's way over-the-top, just lads-mag/Bravo-channel titillation, and that's the supposedly 'serious' stuff, not the cum drinking gross jar or whatever.

baboon2004
01-05-2013, 12:42 PM
http://takimag.com/article/10_unbelievable_things_the_chinese_believe#axzz1tk W2XqS1
http://takimag.com/article/trouble_with_islam#axzz1tkW2XqS1

isn't this the guy who founded vice?

baboon2004
01-05-2013, 01:00 PM
also, since it's no longer like, 1981, thankfully self-righteous earnestness isn't only the only way to be anti-sexist/racist/etc.

It's no longer 1996 either. Ironic detachment is the mainstream, not any kind of alternative. And it's a frequently-used cover for some odious attitudes.

I wonder if those from the States just haven't seen wall-to-wall 'irony' for enough years yet to be utterly bored by it. In the UK we certainly have. I may be wrong, but perhaps this is at the root of some of the disagreement here.

e/y
01-05-2013, 01:40 PM
http://takimag.com/article/10_unbelievable_things_the_chinese_believe#axzz1tk W2XqS1
http://takimag.com/article/trouble_with_islam#axzz1tkW2XqS1

isn't this the guy who founded vice?

fucking hell

Bangpuss
01-05-2013, 02:07 PM
Yes, it is! And here's the site he founded after he left Vice:

http://www.streetbonersandtvcarnage.com/blog/fuck-that-fat-chick/

As Zhao would say, he 'real people'. By the way, that's not some skeleton in the closet I had to research hard to find so I could parade an unrepresentative sample. Like the Vice stories cited above, it's on the front page of the site right now.

padraig (u.s.)
01-05-2013, 02:44 PM
A mistake because we have a differing opinion?

no. because this:


shoulda been more clear in OP tho cos I'm def not interested in just discussing VICE. haven't read the mag in years, rarely if ever look at website, it just don't interest me. plus, who the fuck wants to discuss Vice? it is what it is and it has been for what, nearing 20 years now right? whatever you think of it you think of it.

thought some of the people at Vice parlaying the magazine into the YT channel into an HBO show that got bemused coverage in NYT etc was a marginally interesting development, as much for what it says about CNN or whoever as Vice. bringing it up was mistake cos should've known would inevitably devolve into an argument about the gross jar etc, which is a pointless argument that I don't care about.

don't think Vice is greatest thing ever, or even good, or unproblematic. do think it's an easy target for earnest liberals who want to feel morally superior. also think your criticisms are pretty facile but you're welcome to them. also I'm sorry they didn't pay you one time or whatever + your bitter about it [edit: I take the last line back. I'm sure shady business practices on the internet are hardly unique to vice but it's a low blow and beside the point anyway. the rest stands tho]

padraig (u.s.)
01-05-2013, 02:53 PM
I wonder if those from the States just haven't seen wall-to-wall 'irony' for enough years yet to be utterly bored by it

never been to the States, have you

point isn't that irony is so awesome, just that self-righteous earnestness doesn't impart moral superiority


isn't this the guy who founded vice?

yeah he does the Vincent Gallo "I'm a Republican and a massive jerk but am I really or is it just a massive put-on" schtick. think the only founder still w/Vice is the dude who doing the TV show, who is more benevolently clueless than hardcore d-bag.

Bangpuss
01-05-2013, 03:36 PM
earnest liberals who want to feel morally superior.

I don't think it's about moral superiority or being overly po-faced to say that Vice is good at what it does, which is basically Jackass. Things like Jackass can be funny, but sending Johnny Knoxville to Syria doesn't make it a trustworthy news source. Skateboarding in Palestine doesn't make me feel more or less for the people of Gaza...
It actually kind of cheapens and devalues the issues they're given credit for covering.


also I'm sorry they didn't pay you one time or whatever + your bitter about it.

I'm not bitter, it's a funny story I'm still trying to write up. A tabloid gave me way more for the same story, so I still came out of it OK. But I do wish more people knew how their sausage is made. Or was made, maybe they've changed...

baboon2004
01-05-2013, 04:52 PM
I've been quite a few times, spent about a year there in total. Outside certain small pockets, that kind of 'irony' really isn't as big there in my experience (which is of course by no means a bad thing). Have you spent time in the UK?

At least if someone is earnest, you have a yardstick by which to judge the difference between their words and actions. With irony, it frequently means someone is too scared to even commit to being judged in that way, and too scared to present what they truly think.


never been to the States, have you

point isn't that irony is so awesome, just that self-righteous earnestness doesn't impart moral superiority

yeah he does the Vincent Gallo "I'm a Republican and a massive jerk but am I really or is it just a massive put-on" schtick. think the only founder still w/Vice is the dude who doing the TV show, who is more benevolently clueless than hardcore d-bag.

padraig (u.s.)
01-05-2013, 05:25 PM
Skateboarding in Palestine doesn't make me feel more or less for the people of Gaza...

does regular news coverage make you, or the public at large, feel more or less for the people of Gaza (or wherever)? and if it does, which I doubt, is making people feel the point of journalism?

I never said Vice was a "trustworthy news source" (tho neither is CNN, if you followed the coverage of the Boston bombing). it ain't Bernard Fall in Vietnam, but it's also not Jackass. it's more like if the Jackass guys started caring about stuff and decided to start making documentaries about school privatization or immigration but had no idea how to actually do so. the Liberia doc I mentioned: it's just some dudes tooling around Monrovia talking to ex-warlords. it's amateur, lacks depth or insight, they repeatedly look like clueless 1st world assholes (esp compared the two real journalists - one Liberian, one Canadian freelancer who lives there - they get to guide them around). and surely one of the reasons Vice originally wrote about it during the civil war was the WTF factor of the Liberian Civil War, crossdressing cannibals and guys w/names like General Buttnaked. but it's legitimate, and totally unironic - they're def not covertly laughing at the people they're filming - and the style produces its own kind of insight that regular news coverage absolutely wouldn't. that's why I said they're more like a sub-sub-sub-sub Herozg/Errol Morris than 60 Minutes. but watch it for yourself. just understand the difference I'm making between the documentaries and whatever click bait is on Vice's front page.

padraig (u.s.)
01-05-2013, 05:26 PM
and btw, wtf is wrong with skateboarding in Palestine? like all news coverage of conflict zones or impoverished people has to be an unrelenting self-serious slog of grimness. like Gazan teenagers aren't allowed to be goofy idiots just as much as 1st world teenagers.

padraig (u.s.)
01-05-2013, 05:27 PM
I've been quite a few times, spent about a year there in total

I apologize. clearly you're an expert on the American psyche.

baboon2004
01-05-2013, 05:42 PM
I apologize. clearly you're an expert on the American psyche.

Oh dear. Someone's getting narky, for little or no reason.

If you'll read my original comment: "I wonder if those from the States just haven't seen wall-to-wall 'irony' for enough years yet to be utterly bored by it. In the UK we certainly have. I may be wrong, but perhaps this is at the root of some of the disagreement here."

then you'll see that it was just a supposition on my part. Also, you didn't answer my question about your experience of the UK.

IdleRich
01-05-2013, 06:22 PM
"news flash: EVERYONE DOES THIS ON THE INTERNET. sorry for the caps but thats one of the dumbest criticisms I've ever read. The Guardian, The Atlantic, CNN, you name it. every major pop culture website, every major news site, produces click bait. it's not somehow less noble when Vice does it"
Maybe true but if you find the topics that a publication is using as click-bait childish then it's probably an indication that you might find the publication childish.


"that's not what he said but more patronizing interpretation, please"

I'm not sure - Bangpuss said he wasn't commenting on any supposed sexism from Vice just its laddishnes and Zhao said


"i have never met a single girl who finds Vice offensive or misogynist. and i have quite a few feminist theory types in my circles who reads Kristeva. instead, they all either like it and read it regularly, or find the occasional story funny or curious.

besides, for every "lad's story" like "Who Gives The Best Head, Girls or Gays" or whatever, there is a "Guide to Eating Pussy" article written by a girl.

Vice is one of the most un-sexist, un-classist, and resolutely anti-racist publications in existence.
Which may be true but is at best irrelevant. I definitely read it as Zhao trying to shift the criticisms back to sexism (for the second time) - presumably becuase it is easier to defend on those grounds.

Not that I personally have a problem with the laddishness of Vice - it is what it is and there's not much more to say about it. I quite enjoy it every now and again.

trza
01-05-2013, 07:21 PM
The whole North Korea scenario this past couple months seems to have played out like every other North Korea crisis of the past twenty years. But if NK had bombed some island off the coast of South Korea or sunk a fishing boat, would Vice have apologized for going there with a washed up basketball star a month earlier? I get the idea of going there for an HBO special, but what if some poor South Korean fisherman or conscripted soldiers had died in some bizarre incident?

craner
02-05-2013, 09:41 AM
yeah he does the Vincent Gallo "I'm a Republican and a massive jerk but am I really or is it just a massive put-on" schtick.

So, let me get this straight, is the basis of Vice a post-Gen X P. J. O'Rourke pose? It's funny, I'm a magazine addict, but I have never taken more than a cursory glance at Vice. It stank of stunts.

Bangpuss
02-05-2013, 09:41 AM
does regular news coverage make you, or the public at large, feel more or less for the people of Gaza (or wherever)? and if it does, which I doubt, is making people feel the point of journalism?

I never said Vice was a "trustworthy news source" (tho neither is CNN, if you followed the coverage of the Boston bombing). it ain't Bernard Fall in Vietnam, but it's also not Jackass. it's more like if the Jackass guys started caring about stuff and decided to start making documentaries about school privatization or immigration but had no idea how to actually do so. the Liberia doc I mentioned: it's just some dudes tooling around Monrovia talking to ex-warlords. it's amateur, lacks depth or insight, they repeatedly look like clueless 1st world assholes (esp compared the two real journalists - one Liberian, one Canadian freelancer who lives there - they get to guide them around). and surely one of the reasons Vice originally wrote about it during the civil war was the WTF factor of the Liberian Civil War, crossdressing cannibals and guys w/names like General Buttnaked. but it's legitimate, and totally unironic - they're def not covertly laughing at the people they're filming - and the style produces its own kind of insight that regular news coverage absolutely wouldn't. that's why I said they're more like a sub-sub-sub-sub Herozg/Errol Morris than 60 Minutes. but watch it for yourself. just understand the difference I'm making between the documentaries and whatever click bait is on Vice's front page.

I agree with about 90% of that. I'm not defending regular news coverage, for the complex of factors relating to bias and what consitutes 'news', etc. But with Vice, you're right, they come across as ignorant, churlish first-worlders only there for the 'whoah, dude!' factor. Do they care about the people and the issues? Maybe they do. But as you say, there's definitely a form of cultural colonialism going on, with privileged white dudes exploiting tragic situations for titillation. All foreign news coverage is ambulance chasing to an extent, but Vice's version is particularly vulgar.

As much as I hate to bring it back to sexism, have a flick through the mag or look at the site and tell me how many women hold editorial positions. I don't think that necessarily makes them misogynistic. (Read that line again.) But I can totally understand why someone could think so, especially when added to the other evidence which supports that argument.

padraig (u.s.)
27-05-2013, 12:27 PM
so shane smith was on charlie rose last friday. only caught the last 2/3s but it was pretty interesting. he made some of the same points I did upthread about Vice's ability to present news to people that are interested in news but turned off by traditional news outlets, and he said that news - and specifically the longform content on its YT channel - has been by far Vice's most popular content for awhile now. the shift to news was - like I thought - a philosophical one for him, he realized if he had this platform he wanted to say something of worth instead of just snarky pop culture bullshit or whatever (the split w/mcinnes was at least partly over that), and it wound up being a good business move too b/c it turns out people do prefer news to click bait if you can present it in a way that engages them. there was a fair amount of entrepreneur seminar kind of talk about being willing to continuously reinventing yourself etc, altho he also made a pretty good point about how for a long time everyone was investing in platforms instead of in creating original content, which Vice focused on. oh and they got into the North Korea trip, if anyone is interested I can summarize what he said but this is already getting pretty long. I dunno if charlie rose streams online anywhere but i recommend watching it if you can find a way (c rose is always good anyway)

the last thing he said was "if you want to avoid criticism don't go anywhere and don't do anything" which, 100% yes

padraig (u.s.)
27-05-2013, 12:31 PM
also @bangpuss - didn't see that before but: 95% of foreign news coverage is ambulance chasing and I don't think Vice's is any less dignified or more exploitative than CNN (if you think is isn't true I dare you to watch any 8 consecutive hours of CNN) or the BBC. it is worse than no-nonsense independent journalists, indymedia types or otherwise but unfortunately that kind of coverage is typically highly marginalized. plus also, see above comment about criticism

nochexxx
03-06-2013, 05:50 PM
so shane smith was on charlie rose last friday.

going to have to watch that (http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12946).

baboon2004
03-06-2013, 07:17 PM
CNN is like The Day Today! Jawdroppingly bad, 100% comedy. True, vice may not be less dignified than that, but it's a low bar. Again, there's a significant difference between us and uk culturally, to reiterate my point above.


also @bangpuss - didn't see that before but: 95% of foreign news coverage is ambulance chasing and I don't think Vice's is any less dignified or more exploitative than CNN (if you think is isn't true I dare you to watch any 8 consecutive hours of CNN) or the BBC. it is worse than no-nonsense independent journalists, indymedia types or otherwise but unfortunately that kind of coverage is typically highly marginalized. plus also, see above comment about criticism

Mr. Tea
04-06-2013, 08:32 AM
CNN is like The Day Today! .

Sure we've all seen this, right?

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/q71/s480x480/7811_577766285601034_1835035799_n.jpg

Left: CNN Turkey
Right: international CNN

PadaEtc
18-06-2013, 02:51 PM
After their plates controversy fuck vice. Gone too far.

Local Authority
19-06-2013, 10:03 AM
Read an interview somewhere where the editor compared himself, or likening himself, to Ian Hislop. Which is a strange comparison.

IdleRich
17-08-2013, 02:47 PM
Mainstreaming?

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/aug/17/rupert-murdoch-vice-magazine-stake

zhao
18-08-2013, 08:57 AM
After their plates controversy fuck vice. Gone too far.

plates?

trza
19-08-2013, 04:21 PM
For the people without HBO, they put their first episode on youtubez:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAI6YYJ1sko

nomos
19-08-2013, 05:41 PM
The Revolution Will Not Be Vice
http://gawker.com/the-revolution-will-not-be-vice-1165948487


Honesty demands that Vice's accomplishments be acknowledged. It also demands that we call Vice what it really is: an ever-expanding machine for selling counterculture cool to the world's largest and most mainstream corporations. All media companies including ours are in the business of selling their audience's attention, of course, but Vice stands out for its twin passions of wrapping itself in antiestablishment symbols and simultaneously hustling harder than anyone to become part of the establishment. More than most media companies, Vice is a trick pulled on its own audience: lured by the promise of not giving a fuck, cool kids are assembled into a space where their desirable not-give-a-fuckness can be sold to corporate sponsors for hefty fees, which go into the pockets of Vice's owners.

zhao
20-08-2013, 11:43 AM
that is 1 way of looking at it. do you think it is the only?

Even with the mainstreaming and success, even with the imperfections and problems, i still enjoy Vice content once in a while, and DAMN glad it exists rather than not.

Voice of privilege? what media, music, film, in the West isn't?
Exploitative? on the other hand it DOES expose injustice and inequity on a global scale in a way other publications are not doing.
Jackass of news? But reaching a young western audience who otherwise would be much less informed of the devastating toll, and disastrous consequences of their privilege.

Mr. Tea
20-08-2013, 12:04 PM
plates?

Cut-throat Colombian drug barons who obsessively collect Princess Diana plates. Probably.

Patrick Swayze
20-08-2013, 12:10 PM
that is 1 way of looking at it. do you think it is the only?

Even with the mainstreaming and success, even with the imperfections and problems, i still enjoy Vice content once in a while, and DAMN glad it exists rather than not.

Voice of privilege? what media, music, film, in the West isn't?
Exploitative? on the other hand it DOES expose injustice and inequity on a global scale in a way other publications are not doing.
Jackass of news? But reaching a young western audience who otherwise would be much less informed of the devastating toll, and disastrous consequences of their privilege.

I reckon it contributes a lot to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8moePxHpvok)

Leo
20-08-2013, 12:47 PM
murdoch also bought myspace for $580 million and ended up ditching it for $30 million, so he doesn't always have the midas touch.

zhao
20-08-2013, 06:32 PM
I reckon it contributes a lot to this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8moePxHpvok)

what DOESN'T contrute to that?

That is a phenomenon, like the short itself explains, with roots a bit older, and a lot bigger, than Vice.

Patrick Swayze
20-08-2013, 08:27 PM
what DOESN'T contrute to that?

That is a phenomenon, like the short itself explains, with roots a bit older, and a lot bigger, than Vice.

A subscription to Amnesty International's magazine, for example, contributes less to that phenomena in the sense that you are actually required to care about what you read in a financial sense and your money is used to at least attempt to improve the situations they decry. Whereas with Vice you pay no money and are instead yourself commodotised via advertising for the (considerable) financial gain of the proprieters.

zhao
21-08-2013, 12:52 AM
A subscription to Amnesty International's magazine, for example, contributes less to that phenomena in the sense that you are actually required to care about what you read in a financial sense and your money is used to at least attempt to improve the situations they decry. Whereas with Vice you pay no money and are instead yourself commodotised via advertising for the (considerable) financial gain of the proprieters.

sure. but then again there is the demographic and audience issue - 20 -30 year olds are not reading Amnesty International, are they? and saying they should is about as useful as saying the world should be more equal and just.

Patrick Swayze
21-08-2013, 11:14 AM
sure. but then again there is the demographic and audience issue - 20 -30 year olds are not reading Amnesty International, are they? and saying they should is about as useful as saying the world should be more equal and just.

Yeah, they definitely are reading it.

Vice is more popular, but that's because it appeals to people who don't give a shit and contributes to people giving less of a shit i.e. I know about that now isn't it bad, I'll tell my friends how bad it is and they'll agree, making me look informed and sympathetic *turns page* damn I need those hyperfuses.

So what I'm saying is, you can't say Vice is useful in a humanitarian sense simply because it's popular and reports on far flung places.

If it used some of its profits to actually aid the situations it reports on, then it might have some credibility as anything other than a means for the West to feel better (less bad) about the consequences of its wealth and privelege.

trza
21-08-2013, 03:37 PM
I don't think Vice has actually changed that much since it was a free magazine to be picked up in trendy clothing stores in big cities. It might be a case of mainstream coming to them, I don't expect them to just leave money on the table and keep writing about bad music and captions of fashion mistakes.

Leo
21-08-2013, 03:47 PM
exchanged a few emails with a friend on this topic, tend to agree with what he said...


I've watched a bunch of their short news docs on Youtube. Some are really good and are bringing to light stories that would otherwise never get covered. Some are sensationalistic in just the manner you'd expect from Vice. Low on substance and high on people with no teeth holding snakes.

zhao
18-09-2013, 11:35 PM
say wtf you will, i enjoy stuff like this:

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/one-night-in-the-life-of-a-bouncer

Sectionfive
09-02-2014, 02:39 AM
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/media-and-marketing/television-journalism-reshaped-for-the-vice-generation-1.1680714

nomos
03-03-2014, 09:12 PM
Not that Gawker's great but here:
http://gawker.com/vice-is-very-touchy-about-its-wonderful-work-on-behalf-1535223061

Leo
04-03-2014, 10:40 PM
From The Baffler...long, with a News Corp. preface before getting to Vice (could also go in the "best headlines" thread): http://thebaffler.com/past/the_vertically_integrated_rape_joke

datwun
06-03-2014, 01:30 AM
That's a good article.
Still, I think it does present a very onesided view, ignoring for example that within this admitedly fairly dystopian corporate arrangement, and mostly poorly written, myopic and trite content, there is actually a fair deal of of Good Stuff. Articles about the effect the HS2 is having kicking familes out of their homes in Camden, lots of anti-coilition stuff, one of my friends writing with a regular collum with a strong feminist leaning etc.

For all that the founders seem like super shitty human beings, the majority of the "content creators" (shudder) are progressives and I think it shows in their coverage

trza
22-04-2014, 09:38 PM
Is that whole reporter taken hostage in the Ukraine thing real or is it some kind of internet humor to get people to sympathize or visit sponsors.

nomos
17-08-2014, 01:05 AM
Rooster CCO [/Vice co-founder] Gavin McInnes Asked to Take Leave of Absence Following transphobic Thought Catalog essay, boycott

http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/rooster-cco-gavin-mcinnes-asked-take-leave-absence-159536

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--NfUCu-Xk--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/rxo8ufpxy6pb0arb62cl.png

nomos
18-08-2014, 01:03 AM
And this about poor pay at the UK office and business practices generally...
http://gawker.com/vice-uk-is-not-as-cool-as-it-seems-either-1604842641

zhao
19-08-2014, 07:15 PM
has anyone mentioned that there may be some overlap of the reasons for this shit being let go from Rooster and him being let go from Vice?

i mean it may not be fair to associate Gavin's arsehole behavior with Vice because it may be cause for him no longer being a part of Vice?

and Shane, whatever, he defends his company. Not all that shitty at all. And there is indeed a big difference between branded content and content sponsored by brands -- Shane said the same thing to me 10 years ago: no one will ever tell Vice what to print.

sufi
17-09-2014, 12:13 PM
Stunning Map Shows Just How Much Of Iraq And Syria VICE Now Controls (http://www.clickhole.com/article/stunning-map-shows-just-how-much-iraq-and-syria-vi-924)

trza
17-09-2014, 03:05 PM
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>&#39;Breaking Bad&#39; Merchandise Is Cheapening the Show&#39;s Legacy <a href="http://t.co/9SCzCSwC3A">http://t.co/9SCzCSwC3A</a> <a href="http://t.co/gwpYknXmbR">pic.twitter.com/gwpYknXmbR</a></p>&mdash; VICE (@VICE) <a href="https://twitter.com/VICE/status/510571108228005889">September 12, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

trza
30-10-2014, 07:39 PM
from polkitico

Smith is consistently bullish on the success of his company and said current metrics of his audience, which are usually around 150 million to 200 million total viewers and readers per month globally, underreports its actual reach. And though talks to take over HLN from Time Warner didn’t go through, Smith said that more television expansion is inevitable.

“Look, I’m sold out for eight months on all my online properties, and I doubled my rate card twice this year,” Smith said. “I need to get into TV just to have assets to sell my advertisements, let alone that I want more eyeballs and I want to create more content.”

Smith became even more bullish over criticisms leveled at his company, especially from the likes of Gawker, which has consistently knocked the company for reportedly paying low wages and editing for advertisers.

“I would ask you to look at the source, and there’s only one source for that, and why that question keeps coming up. It’s because it’s f---ing Gawker having sour grapes at being an also-ran,” Smith said, adding that Vice's average salary is $71,000 and its average age is 24.

If people are publishing criticisms, it means that Vice is at the top of its game, Smith said.

“We’re at the top of the mountain. Now we have to say, how do we have a better working model, how do we be better to our people, and not because we don’t want to have bad press, because we want to be a good company going forward. Those are the interesting issues of tremendous growth,” Smith said.

During the onstage conversation with Carney, Smith said old media are dying and companies like his are the new guard.

“There’s a changing of the guard every generation in media, and we’re a changing of the guard for generation Y,” Smith said.

Mr. Tea
30-10-2014, 10:32 PM
An "average salary" of 71k sounds impressive, but it's entirely consistent with a handful of people making an absolute killing while hundreds or thousands earn a pittance.

comelately
31-10-2014, 12:17 PM
An "average salary" of 71k sounds impressive, but it's entirely consistent with a handful of people making an absolute killing while hundreds or thousands earn a pittance.

It probably also doesn't count the interns.

luka
27-11-2014, 12:22 PM
i waas just saying to my mate on twitter whats funny is vice moves to the UK and all the trolling and coke and extrovert bad behaviour fall away and it becomes a place for nice kids to audition for the guardian.

luka
27-11-2014, 12:29 PM
he sent me a link to an article about stratford shopping centre written by this young lad http://timburrows.blogspot.co.uk/ who is in the painful process of learning his trade. its about something that was discusssed on dissensus two and a half years ago. so vice comes to the uk and loses its identity. it is just another outlet for these sad grey people and their arts degree group think and their well meaning attemts to únderstand''

luka
27-11-2014, 12:33 PM
the sort of lad that will write a 20,000 word article agonising about craft beer lol

luka
27-11-2014, 12:36 PM
a mate of mine from vancouver showeed me an issue of vice in 2001 and what was fresh about it was the lack of agonising. it had that bro culture high five mentality but clearly trolling so not entirely braindead. a bit disgusting but not toally braindead. stole a lot of moves from grand royal but removed the PC agonising which the beastie boys imposed.

luka
27-11-2014, 01:26 PM
The high-5 Bro culture VICE was built on has no analogue in the UK. its the dominanat youth culture in the colonies. in canada in aus in nz.... and in the US too.we are a darker more introspective people. doesnt translate

Mr. Tea
27-11-2014, 02:12 PM
The high-5 Bro culture VICE was built on has no analogue in the UK.

The Loaded/Oasis/footy/lager/coke-powered New Lad of the '90s wasn't a million miles away, was he?

luka
27-11-2014, 02:29 PM
those people didnt exist outside of the pages of Loaded. you had some fake lads runnning round halls of residence and theres always been 'proper geezers; and their hangers on but that loaded thing was a fantasy

luka
27-11-2014, 02:37 PM
keg party culture is rooted in an unreflective extraversion that no englishman could ever relate to PARTY ON!

luka
27-11-2014, 02:45 PM
like i saidon here b4 americans dont get drunk they just say WOOP alot. we drink to numb the pain, overcome crippling inhibitions, relieve the interminable tedium...

Mr. Tea
27-11-2014, 02:58 PM
those people didnt exist outside of the pages of Loaded. you had some fake lads runnning round halls of residence and theres always been 'proper geezers; and their hangers on but that loaded thing was a fantasy

I'm not convinced by this, particularly the argument that middle-class kids or students could only ever be pseudolads. Sure, some of them may have attempted to affect the mannerisms of Millwall fans but if you act in a laddy way then you're a lad, aren't you? Almost regardless of your background.

In fact wasn't the New Lad primarily about blokes who had degrees and worked in offices attending football matches en masse, wearing Ben Sherman and drinking Stella?

luka
27-11-2014, 03:01 PM
you dont have to be convinced. im explaining something. you just have to listen!

luka
27-11-2014, 03:06 PM
youre not even obliged to listen.

luka
27-11-2014, 03:08 PM
but a middle england lad in a shit shirt is still a world away from a bro in any case

Mr. Tea
27-11-2014, 03:42 PM
you dont have to be convinced. im explaining something. you just have to listen!

Nah it's cool, I'm with you that it's not the *same* culture - but I think it's at least partly analogous.

I agree that the whooping for the sheer ebullient joy of whooping thing is a primarily colonial trait - people in Britain sometimes do this too, or seem to do it, but perhaps here it's a cover for something else. The pain/inhibitions you mentioned.

luka
27-11-2014, 03:46 PM
all i wanted to say in any case is that vice uk lacks an identity becasue the culture that vice was a product of doesnt exist here and that what that means is that the people who write for vice inthe uk are indistinguishable from the people who write for the guide which comes with the guardian on saturday. thats all.

trza
27-11-2014, 04:11 PM
I remember when Vice was only available for free at trendy clothing shops or record stores. I remember ordering from online record stores over ten years ago and they would throw in an issue of vice if you paid the shipping. You couldn't get the media mail rate if you had a magazine in your order.

Patrick Swayze
27-11-2014, 07:53 PM
There's a documentary on the BBC at the moment about Tatler.

It's definitely got that self-congratulatory thing going on.

luka
28-11-2014, 12:20 AM
Mate, It's not arguable
I'm tanked up now but inspect the evidence. Vice can't breathe in UK oxygen

CrowleyHead
01-12-2014, 04:15 PM
like i saidon here b4 americans dont get drunk they just say WOOP alot. we drink to numb the pain, overcome crippling inhibitions, relieve the interminable tedium...

Americans become alcoholics because they're inept. The American instinct is that there's too much opportunity and they can't force themselves to do something specific with so much possibility.

Granted, that's a 'certain' American.

Vice was the same, no? Fingers in dozens of pies. They also stole a lot of their troll persona from Buddyhead's actually authentic dickheads status.

Leo
19-02-2015, 04:39 PM
Vice CEO Smith Spent $300,000 on Vegas Feast After Blackjack


(Bloomberg) -- It makes sense that Vice had something to do with it.

Vice Media Inc. Chief Executive Officer Shane Smith paid for a $300,000 Las Vegas dinner last month, according to a person who asked not to be identified because the meal was private. Mr. Smith, a Vice co-founder, had been on a lucky gambling run, the person said.

Brooklyn-based Vice has grown from a free, whiskey-stained Montreal monthly into a media titan. Technology Crossover Ventures and A+E Networks each invested $250 million for 10% stakes in the company last year.

After Gawker published complaints about Vice's low wages and freelance pay last year, the company released a statement describing the insurance, vacation days and stock program for its employees. Mr. Smith, 45, gave $1 million to staff at last year's holiday party, Gawker reported.

The cost of the meal at the Bellagio casino's Prime Steakhouse was reported by Bloomberg News earlier Wednesday, after MGM Resorts International revealed on an earnings call Tuesday that unidentified guests had enjoyed a $300,000 meal. The dinner was held during the Consumer Electronics Show, according to MGM Chief Financial Officer Dan D'Arrigo.

It was a party of 12, an MGM spokesman said in an e-mail. A guest at the dinner, who asked not to be identified, put the number closer to 25.

"No brainer quiz. What media co exec did I watch win $100k at blackjack last nite?" David Carr, The New York Times media columnist wrote last month on Twitter, weeks before his death at 58. "Hint: gambling not his only vice."


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-18/vice-s-shane-smith-spent-300-000-on-vegas-feast-after-blackjack

rubberdingyrapids
18-03-2015, 03:44 PM
all i wanted to say in any case is that vice uk lacks an identity becasue the culture that vice was a product of doesnt exist here and that what that means is that the people who write for vice inthe uk are indistinguishable from the people who write for the guide which comes with the guardian on saturday. thats all.


they share some of the same writers dont they? or they did at least. andy capper used to write for the guide. dont really agree that the lack of a real uk identity matters though, vice seems to do just fine. and kids dont/didnt seem to care.

jackjambie
07-04-2015, 02:35 PM
https://twitter.com/thugclive/status/578955665483370496

Big shame imo. He was definitely my favourite writer there...

jackjambie
07-04-2015, 02:38 PM
will hopefully go on to bigger and better things i guess. i thought his parting buzzfeed joke was funny...

rubberdingyrapids
28-04-2015, 02:41 PM
of all the partnerships...

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/27/vice-mind-mental-health-project

Mr. Tea
28-04-2015, 03:21 PM
of all the partnerships...

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/27/vice-mind-mental-health-project

Aww man, whatever happened to the Vice of "I lived on Ribena and Adderall for a week and this is what happened"?

trza
17-07-2015, 02:53 PM
Okay, looks like Gawker stepped in it and people are saying they did the same thing during Gamergate but I didn't pay attention to gamer gate.

Leo
17-07-2015, 05:40 PM
Okay, looks like Gawker stepped in it and people are saying they did the same thing during Gamergate but I didn't pay attention to gamer gate.

the backlash is because the guy isn't a public figure, so what if he wanted to hire a male escort? gawker never had high moral standards, but it's pretty shitty to ruin a guy's life just for lolz.

edit: or are you talking about all their reddit coverage?

trza
29-07-2015, 01:22 AM
he Onion is coming at you with a disruptive docu-vertical of its own, and it’s called Edge.

The series, which premiers online Aug. 3, has a simple mission statement: “With a team of more than 300 news warriors, Edge pummels readers with immersive reporting that is uncaged, unaccountable, and totally fucked up.” In other words, it’s like Vice, but, you know, Edge-ier. And thank the Lord Edge is here to double-down on our regular kidney punches of current events. We weren’t quite urinating blood yet, so this should do the trick.

The teaser for the series gives us a glimpse of those “300 news warriors” fanned out all across the globe to find out what drugs oppressed people are doing.


Nic Moss @NicMossEDGE

Let's get fucked on truth.
10:00 AM - 28 Jul 2015


Chase Vaughn
‏@ChaseVaughnEDGE

Nobody points a camera at dark-skinned people like @EDGEtv. Nobody.

Mr. Tea
29-07-2015, 10:36 AM
All sounds a bit like something Chris Morris might have come out with in 1997, tbh.

Leo
29-07-2015, 01:39 PM
Aussie reality series "Go Back to Where You Came From" -- thought i was reading "the onion" when i first heard about this program, apparently they go to syria this season and encounter ISIS.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/australia-is-under-attack-meet-the-divisive-new-stars-of-go-back-to-where-you-came-from/story-fn8yvfst-1227405757990

Mr. Tea
29-07-2015, 01:42 PM
Aussie reality series "Go Back to Where You Came From" -- thought i was reading "the onion" when i first heard about this program, apparently they go to syria this season and encounter ISIS.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/australia-is-under-attack-meet-the-divisive-new-stars-of-go-back-to-where-you-came-from/story-fn8yvfst-1227405757990

With, I don't doubt, hilarious consequences.

trza
29-07-2015, 08:34 PM
So some video where a rap group named Migos may have been scripted and faked with a bunch of guns used as props. Or maybe they are just saying that after the fact when one of them is in jail.

trza
02-09-2015, 07:31 PM
Sad to hear about those news warriors arrested on terror charges in Turkey. But at least they will have an awesome party when they get back home.

Leo
02-09-2015, 08:29 PM
Does Turkey not recognize hipster media empires?

trza
03-02-2016, 09:24 PM
cable tv channel is finally here

They think you're doing voodoo magic?

SMITH No, the business press thinks we're doing voodoo magic. (Laughs.) They're all, "Shane is f—ing P.T. Barnum." Fox, Time Warner, Disney, they're not stupid. They're smart people. You think that I could hoodwink Bob Iger, Jeff Bewkes and Rupert Murdoch? I'll tell you what they see in us, and I'd do the exact same f—ing thing if there was anybody out there for mobile: We're a hedge. Because they've got their business, and those businesses have thrown off a lot of cash. But Bob Iger probably realizes that his business, the biggest media company in the world, is going to go into a f—ing vortex and he needs to at least have some pathfinder saying, "Hey, Bob, I figured this out over here." They all do, quite frankly. And at least we're f—ing trying. Everyone [else] is galvanized into inactivity. They're like, "Yep, we're f—ed, we're totally f—ed. Should we try anything different? No, f—, no, no, don't unbundle." But unless you try f—ing something, you're not going to learn anything. So, when we came to them with our plans and said, "Here's how we're going do it and here's what we need," they all salivated because they're like, "F—, I'd do that with my company if I could, but I can't."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/warning-shane-smith-interview-has-861227

trza
24-05-2016, 09:02 PM
Massive layoffs at Vice UK? and the cable channel is averaging less than a quarter of what H2 channel in the USA was getting?