5 ms·

Countercultural media is a fickle beast. The edginess that gains you notoriety has a shelf life. And yet, there are a thousand ways for the maturation from that

Countercultural media is a fickle beast. The edginess that gains you notoriety has a shelf life. And yet, there are a thousand ways for the maturation from that awkward adolescence into adulthood to fail. It happened rather dramatically for the Gawker empire. It appears that it will be in a more Byzantine manner for Vice. I certainly wondered if after the controversial albeit effective founder (Gaven McInnes) leaving/the firm going public, it was only a matter of time. Perhaps so.

justinator 6y ago
Given Vice's early print mag being simply hipster trash, it's somewhat remarkable where they've gotten to. The racist, mysogynist cofounder is gunna be a hard thing for me to forget when I think about Vice going forward.
- yowlingcat 6y ago
  If it was hipster trash, how did it end up getting to where it ended up in the first place? There were many other mags that were similarly "hipster trash" that could have had the ascent Vice had. Why not them? You must admit that Vice took a similar approach to Gawker, of measured infotainment, that the pulp sold financed the hardboiled detective journalism. The latter elevated and diversified the empire's brand as a whole. Its cofounder (racist and misogynist or not) remained instrumental in launching it and bringing it to critical mass in the first place; to say otherwise would be revisionism.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - justinator 6y ago
    If it was hipster trash, how did it end up getting to where it ended up in the first place? This isn't a question I was trying to answer, and I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive. My only point is that Vice changed from being some free crap you picked up at American Apparel which most popular part was shaming people's fashion style, to what it is today. How did American Apparel get so large (and where are they now?)? All they did was sell very expensive t-shirts. My guess is fashion trends and marketing - much of that marketing done by, sigh another fairly controversial figure. https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2013/nov/18/terry-richardson-fashion-shameful-photographer https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2013/nov/18/terry-richar... Perhaps making fun of people = visitors = website clicks (as their was an online version of this as well) = advertising moneys. I dunno. Someone saw value in that, and trusted this particular person. I could opt that successful businesses with little real worth are built with the hands of sociopaths (but I'm going that far).
    - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
      > Perhaps making fun of people I like to think it’s because society at-large has improved - otherwise PeopleOfWalmart and other websites of its ilk would still be relevant.
      - iateanapple 6y ago
        I think it’s just turned from funny to depressing.
      - Mountain_Skies 6y ago
        Of maybe the novelty wore off. Either way, we're all probably better off now that it has run its course.
        yowlingcat 6y ago
        I think that's the case. And in a way, I think this echoes my original point -- how fickle it is when the the entire thing that makes your product desirable is a novelty that has no longevity!
        DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
        It wasn't a new novelty though - besides PoW there was (and still is) plenty of classist and snobbish people-watching communities and their content, even on reddit - and it isn't anything new: "white trash" is an ancient term that's still in-use, and I don't think many people watch COPS for mundane police encounters.
        yowlingcat 6y ago
        Oh, for sure. I wonder where we can draw the line. I think that a flavor that is shared by Vice, COPS, PoW and its ilk is a gonzo journalism quality. And you know, now that you mention the classist, snobbish qualities to it, I think there's a key element I was missing in my original point: voyeurism. There's some really specific stuff going on in the way that a class observes the "trashy" mannerisms of a underclass, and it's necessarily veiled because discussion of it is deemed crude, base, or otherwise unbecoming of that class. Would you agree that there's an element of voyeurism there?
- guevara 6y ago
  He was the best part of Vice along with other early members. They used to have AMAZING stories and documentaries during his time. Afterwards, the company went straight to shit. Now, we're blessed with quality articles such as: 1)"Nintendo Switch's Joy-con Sync issue is Even worse if you put it in your butt" 2)"Three days of torture in a male chastity device" 3)"How to pick a chastity cage lock with a condom wrapper" 4)"Finally, a new emoji to mock men" I will be celebrating when Vice (along with BuzzFeed and Vox) file for bankruptcy.
slg 6y ago
>there are a thousand ways for the maturation from that awkward adolescence into adulthood to fail. It happened rather dramatically for the Gawker empire. There is Deadspin in the Gawker portfolio which I think was a great example of the natural maturation you are talking about. The style of the site and what they covered definitely matured over the years, but that same defiant ethos stuck around until and was perhaps defined by the very the moment the entire team mass resigned in response to mismanagement. And it is interesting to note that multiple writers who resigned from Deadspin ended up at Vice.
- yowlingcat 6y ago
  I think the entire Gawker portfolio was absolutely quality, but there isn't too much you can do when Peter Thiel goes for your blood because you made the moronic (albeit one time mistake) of drawing his ire. After the fire sale to Univision, I never expected it to be the same.
  - seabird 6y ago
    Except it wasn't a one time mistake. I can think of at least one other specific instance of them outing somebody, and the Hulk Hogan sex tape situation is equally morally bankrupt. This isn't even counting multiple other pointless invasions of privacy. Gawker got its just desserts, no matter how much Nick Denton cries about it.
    - FireBeyond 6y ago
      One of the many facets I dislike about this story is the "Gawker outed Peter Thiel" claim. Peter Thiel had used pictures of himself shirtless on a gay cruise as his profile on some social media. To consider that his privacy was invaded because he may not have specifically said the precise words "I am gay" is disingenuous. Not to mention, courts have repeatedly held that billionaires are considered "public figures" by virtue of their "outsized influence and impact on public affairs". There's a reason Gawker was never successfully sued by Thiel. Gawker and Hogan _had_ also settled before Thiel got involved. Hogan had settled with the other party, the one who _sold_ the tape, for 0.02% of the claim against Gawker. Isn't another of the tenets of a justice system the right to face your accuser, not have someone Wizard of Oz behind the scenes bankrolling things because of their own vendetta? I can dislike Gawker (TMZ, et al) and still see huge flaws in how this all went down.
coldtea 6y ago
How is Vice "countercultural"? A notch more mainstream and it would be the Readers Digest...
- vzidex 6y ago
  They used to be, that's how they got started. I remember watching their videos in the early 2010s on drugs - including one where the host of the video flew to the Czech Republic to do heroin there. Now? Yeah, I wouldn't call them counter-cultural anymore.
- Benjammer 6y ago
  It is mainstream, now. That's the point OP is making. They at least attempted to focus on counter culture at the start, before they went corporate.
driverdan 6y ago
If McInnes stayed it would be toxic. Most advertisers won't intentionally spend money with a company run by an open bigot.
_prototype_ 6y ago
I doubt its caused by the traditional counterculture. I would wager their decline is much more attributed to their new PC culture, particularly after Shane (their founder) took a more back seat role as advisor. In other words, I believe they are in decline because they are trying to be "woke". and as they say when you go woke you go broke. That is hardly a countercultral media outlet position nowadays
dntbnmpls 6y ago
Vice's problem is the same problem faced by smaller fringe media outlets like huffpo, buzzfeed, etc - they are not "authoritative" sources. Once social media started privileging authoritative sources, their fate was sealed. The irony here is that vice, huffpo, buzzfeed, etc demanded social media censor fringe "alt-right" media and start favoring more established media. They got their wish. Now google, youtube, facebook, etc heavily favors CNN, MSNBC, Foxnews, NYTimes, WaPo, etc. It still shocks me how oblivious these people were. They depended entirely on social media providing an equal playing field to everyone. And yet, they were the ones demanding social media companies play favorites. At this point, what is there but to just laugh at them. Nobody should feel sorry for these people/companies as they got what they asked for. Censorship and favoritism. The funny thing is that most likely the alt-right media will outlast vice, huffpo, buzzfeed, etc.
- uterm 6y ago
  Has vice actually called for any outlets to be censored? As far as I've seen they haven't. I'd be interested to see examples though if you have them.

justinator 6y ago

Given Vice's early print mag being simply hipster trash, it's somewhat remarkable where they've gotten to. The racist, mysogynist cofounder is gunna be a hard thing for me to forget when I think about Vice going forward.

yowlingcat 6y ago
If it was hipster trash, how did it end up getting to where it ended up in the first place? There were many other mags that were similarly "hipster trash" that could have had the ascent Vice had. Why not them? You must admit that Vice took a similar approach to Gawker, of measured infotainment, that the pulp sold financed the hardboiled detective journalism. The latter elevated and diversified the empire's brand as a whole. Its cofounder (racist and misogynist or not) remained instrumental in launching it and bringing it to critical mass in the first place; to say otherwise would be revisionism.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- justinator 6y ago
  If it was hipster trash, how did it end up getting to where it ended up in the first place? This isn't a question I was trying to answer, and I don't believe the two are mutually exclusive. My only point is that Vice changed from being some free crap you picked up at American Apparel which most popular part was shaming people's fashion style, to what it is today. How did American Apparel get so large (and where are they now?)? All they did was sell very expensive t-shirts. My guess is fashion trends and marketing - much of that marketing done by, sigh another fairly controversial figure. https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2013/nov/18/terry-richardson-fashion-shameful-photographer https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2013/nov/18/terry-richar... Perhaps making fun of people = visitors = website clicks (as their was an online version of this as well) = advertising moneys. I dunno. Someone saw value in that, and trusted this particular person. I could opt that successful businesses with little real worth are built with the hands of sociopaths (but I'm going that far).
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    > Perhaps making fun of people I like to think it’s because society at-large has improved - otherwise PeopleOfWalmart and other websites of its ilk would still be relevant.
    - iateanapple 6y ago
      I think it’s just turned from funny to depressing.
    - Mountain_Skies 6y ago
      Of maybe the novelty wore off. Either way, we're all probably better off now that it has run its course.
      - yowlingcat 6y ago
        I think that's the case. And in a way, I think this echoes my original point -- how fickle it is when the the entire thing that makes your product desirable is a novelty that has no longevity!
        DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
        It wasn't a new novelty though - besides PoW there was (and still is) plenty of classist and snobbish people-watching communities and their content, even on reddit - and it isn't anything new: "white trash" is an ancient term that's still in-use, and I don't think many people watch COPS for mundane police encounters.
        yowlingcat 6y ago
        Oh, for sure. I wonder where we can draw the line. I think that a flavor that is shared by Vice, COPS, PoW and its ilk is a gonzo journalism quality. And you know, now that you mention the classist, snobbish qualities to it, I think there's a key element I was missing in my original point: voyeurism. There's some really specific stuff going on in the way that a class observes the "trashy" mannerisms of a underclass, and it's necessarily veiled because discussion of it is deemed crude, base, or otherwise unbecoming of that class. Would you agree that there's an element of voyeurism there?
guevara 6y ago
He was the best part of Vice along with other early members. They used to have AMAZING stories and documentaries during his time. Afterwards, the company went straight to shit. Now, we're blessed with quality articles such as: 1)"Nintendo Switch's Joy-con Sync issue is Even worse if you put it in your butt" 2)"Three days of torture in a male chastity device" 3)"How to pick a chastity cage lock with a condom wrapper" 4)"Finally, a new emoji to mock men" I will be celebrating when Vice (along with BuzzFeed and Vox) file for bankruptcy.

slg 6y ago

>there are a thousand ways for the maturation from that awkward adolescence into adulthood to fail. It happened rather dramatically for the Gawker empire. There is Deadspin in the Gawker portfolio which I think was a great example of the natural maturation you are talking about. The style of the site and what they covered definitely matured over the years, but that same defiant ethos stuck around until and was perhaps defined by the very the moment the entire team mass resigned in response to mismanagement. And it is interesting to note that multiple writers who resigned from Deadspin ended up at Vice.

yowlingcat 6y ago
I think the entire Gawker portfolio was absolutely quality, but there isn't too much you can do when Peter Thiel goes for your blood because you made the moronic (albeit one time mistake) of drawing his ire. After the fire sale to Univision, I never expected it to be the same.
- seabird 6y ago
  Except it wasn't a one time mistake. I can think of at least one other specific instance of them outing somebody, and the Hulk Hogan sex tape situation is equally morally bankrupt. This isn't even counting multiple other pointless invasions of privacy. Gawker got its just desserts, no matter how much Nick Denton cries about it.
  - FireBeyond 6y ago
    One of the many facets I dislike about this story is the "Gawker outed Peter Thiel" claim. Peter Thiel had used pictures of himself shirtless on a gay cruise as his profile on some social media. To consider that his privacy was invaded because he may not have specifically said the precise words "I am gay" is disingenuous. Not to mention, courts have repeatedly held that billionaires are considered "public figures" by virtue of their "outsized influence and impact on public affairs". There's a reason Gawker was never successfully sued by Thiel. Gawker and Hogan _had_ also settled before Thiel got involved. Hogan had settled with the other party, the one who _sold_ the tape, for 0.02% of the claim against Gawker. Isn't another of the tenets of a justice system the right to face your accuser, not have someone Wizard of Oz behind the scenes bankrolling things because of their own vendetta? I can dislike Gawker (TMZ, et al) and still see huge flaws in how this all went down.

coldtea 6y ago

How is Vice "countercultural"? A notch more mainstream and it would be the Readers Digest...

vzidex 6y ago
They used to be, that's how they got started. I remember watching their videos in the early 2010s on drugs - including one where the host of the video flew to the Czech Republic to do heroin there. Now? Yeah, I wouldn't call them counter-cultural anymore.
Benjammer 6y ago
It is mainstream, now. That's the point OP is making. They at least attempted to focus on counter culture at the start, before they went corporate.

driverdan 6y ago

If McInnes stayed it would be toxic. Most advertisers won't intentionally spend money with a company run by an open bigot.

_prototype_ 6y ago

I doubt its caused by the traditional counterculture. I would wager their decline is much more attributed to their new PC culture, particularly after Shane (their founder) took a more back seat role as advisor. In other words, I believe they are in decline because they are trying to be "woke". and as they say when you go woke you go broke. That is hardly a countercultral media outlet position nowadays

dntbnmpls 6y ago

Vice's problem is the same problem faced by smaller fringe media outlets like huffpo, buzzfeed, etc - they are not "authoritative" sources. Once social media started privileging authoritative sources, their fate was sealed. The irony here is that vice, huffpo, buzzfeed, etc demanded social media censor fringe "alt-right" media and start favoring more established media. They got their wish. Now google, youtube, facebook, etc heavily favors CNN, MSNBC, Foxnews, NYTimes, WaPo, etc. It still shocks me how oblivious these people were. They depended entirely on social media providing an equal playing field to everyone. And yet, they were the ones demanding social media companies play favorites. At this point, what is there but to just laugh at them. Nobody should feel sorry for these people/companies as they got what they asked for. Censorship and favoritism. The funny thing is that most likely the alt-right media will outlast vice, huffpo, buzzfeed, etc.

uterm 6y ago
Has vice actually called for any outlets to be censored? As far as I've seen they haven't. I'd be interested to see examples though if you have them.