9 ms·

I used to read Vice when I wanted to know the details the rest of the media wouldn’t report on. The last time I read it was a few months ago. I was curious abou

I used to read Vice when I wanted to know the details the rest of the media wouldn’t report on. The last time I read it was a few months ago. I was curious about the real facts around a certain incident. Instead of a unique perspective, I found the exact same lazy story as I saw on every other website. Plus a large helping of the boring divisive “culture war” crap that is so popular now - complete with actual naked quote mining of those the author disagreed with. How far Vice has fallen.

steveBK123 3y ago
Media seems to all be A/B testing itself into the same bland editorial slants. What is the difference reading NYT, WaPo, Atlantic, Vice, or a dozen other NY/DC based media sites? Vice had a unique style of coverage 10-15 years ago but that definitely ended by/in the Trump era.
- steveBK123 3y ago
  And the weird part of it all is how they have all moved to more and more restrictive paywalls over this time period. Why would I maintain 5-10 subscriptions for content that is 80% the same? I think the streaming video services are speed running the same issue. As a very casual TV watcher, why would I bother to pay $10ish each to NFLX, Disney, Hulu, Peacock, Paramount, HBO, Apple for the 1-2 shows each I may care about. In a way its not even the total cost, its maintaining accounts/billing info/worrying about cancellation policies across a dozen companies.
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    5 Years ago I stopped sailing.... Today the winds are strong, and the sailing is very good...
- tootie 3y ago
  The NY/DC duopoly on media is largely because they have the footprint to be everywhere and write with depth and accuracy. Read the NYT and Axios and you'll have all you need on politics and world news. The ascent of independent media (the substack/podcast crowd) has started to take a huge bite out of the opinion/analysis market. The damage is coming in the middle. All the local newspapers and evening news shows are approaching irrelevance and it's going to be a disaster.
  - steveBK123 3y ago
    Axios falls into the media reporting on media reporting on media trope that I absolutely hate. Twitter is full of enough of that already. The first thing I see when I land there today is "Scoop: How Trump's team egged him on during CNN town hall". Honestly - who cares. How is it even a story? Water is wet. I grew up reading a lot more business news because 1) a lot of time money is the tail that wags that dog and 2) it doesn't get caught up in these tropes as often. Bloomberg differentiates a lot from the Borg collective in that regard. Honestly the left probably needs a Murdoch style maniac to conglomerate left of center partisan media into one megacorp at this point before they all OEM themselves to death. Fox basically has the entire right of center mind share while the left of center battle for the same viewers by providing stunningly similar content.
    - tootie 3y ago
      I used to read WSJ more often but their Op-Ed page has really gone off the deep end into Trump cheerleading which is not what I expected. My primaries are probably NY Times and NPR really, but I like Axios and am watching Semafor with interest. Otherwise, I have a slate of indies I check in on (Marcy Wheeler and Claudia Sahm are always interesting), but I've genuinely lost some of that when I quit twitter. I like the CNN homepage just because it's so broad. Like I'll never seek out celebrity news, but it's good to see whatever has bubbled up to the top of the national consciousness. I don't think the left can really support a true maniac on par with Tucker Carlson. They tried Air America with Al Franken years ago and it was not bad, but didn't resonate. I remember a host trying to say the 2004 election was stolen by Republicans and I just turned it off. Don't remember who it was, but she didn't get any traction reading from the right-wing play book.
      - steveBK123 3y ago
        I don't mean the left needs a demagogue, I mean they need a business conglomerate to consolidate & compete. Another good alternative to WSJ is FT. FT & Bloomberg subscriptions cost about 10x what WSJ does though. For me I am happier paying for one (or both of them) + NYT, than 15 different NYT-alikes.
testHNac 3y ago
The problem is that Vice kind of stories are costly to produce. And are not sensational enough to get a lot of clicks. It's easier to do a typical 'Culture War' fear mongering type content and get easy clicks. Also, I think we are in an echo chamber where if you don't report on comment on the latest topic, you might be perceived to belong to the other side. The West seems to lump issues into "Good" vs "Evil". Leaving no space for News media in grey area to succeed. I can't think of any 'Moderate' News source that is massively successful. Most of the mainstream ones can easily be classified into one camp or the other. May be just degree of devotion to the camp differs.
- RhodesianHunter 3y ago
  NPR
  - pirate787 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - jjulius 3y ago
      Perhaps because the idea is that we should be open to gender-affirming care being an option, rather than being banned? Let people make their own choices for themselves rather than telling them what they should and shouldn't be allowed to do to their own bodies. Some will regret that choice, yes, and we should also empathize with them, but we shouldn't deprive others of the same choice just because those individuals feel regret. Edit: This also feels like cherry-picking. Glancing a the https://text.npr.org/ https://text.npr.org/ URL from a sister thread shows some pretty moderate reading. For the sake of the argument, if we assume that this article is left-leaning, it's drowned out by a sea of otherwise moderate content.
    - foobarbecue 3y ago
      NPR is partially state-funded only in the sense that they have won some government grants, which cover less than 1% of their costs. (Edit: I just learned that if you include local stations and local governments, this number could be counted up to 10%.) As for their bias, they get a -4.6 on Ad Fontes https://adfontesmedia.com/npr-bias-and-reliability/ https://adfontesmedia.com/npr-bias-and-reliability/ .
trevin 3y ago
Vice seems to have fallen victim to the increased polarization and agenda-ridden stories that have swept up so many media companies. They used to report on unique angles, find edgy topics to talk about...the last few years they regurgitate the same left-leaning talking points that one can find in any number of other media outlets. They lost their soul and became what they probably used to hate.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  >They lost their soul They accepted funding from large media companies (Disney), and got rid most of their founding members, and original employees replacing them with "journalists" that largely float around between those properties that "regurgitate the same left-leaning talking points"
  - sundvor 3y ago
    And in between all that is a sprinkling of truly high quality journalists who are doing none of that crap. As I said elsewhere in this thread, I really hope they'll find a new home somewhere - where the context for their work is not being ruined by all the one sided culture wars "reporting". Oh, and all the drugs stuff. I'm truly over the divisiveness so prevalent seemingly everywhere. Please let some nuance in, perhaps magic will happen.
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      Given they were forced to file bankruptcy on behest of their creditors whom are taking over the company, both of which are highly political and partisan (including George Soros) I would not hold my breath for a return to "quality journalism" anytime soon
      - sundvor 3y ago
        I was specifically wishing for the actual quality journalists to find a better place to continue their excellent work.
kornhole 3y ago
The funding mechanism of these organizations reveals a lot about the trajectory. Some start out with a lot of seed money with few restrictions. If they start to rely on big advertisers or funding from 'philanthropists', the content is usually influenced by these sources. The best publications I find these days are funded by donations from readers. This keeps them independent and not beholden to those big funders. Fund the good organizations via Patreon, Locals, Substack, direct.. to keep them honest.
sillyfluke 3y ago
I find it strange that it seemingly isn't mentioned in the top comments but the thing that killed Vice was simple: twitter. It took down a lot of cultural media landmarks by usurping their relevance, Vice was one of the big ones. They needed to move at the speed of gossip with takes that were truly original in order to survive. they didn't.
AzzieElbab 3y ago
I just opened vice news from a North American location and went through the headlines. The politicization is through the roof, and the headlines do not match the context. I am sure there is a market for this type of journalism, but it is much smaller these days because every org left and right is doing it.

steveBK123 3y ago

Media seems to all be A/B testing itself into the same bland editorial slants. What is the difference reading NYT, WaPo, Atlantic, Vice, or a dozen other NY/DC based media sites? Vice had a unique style of coverage 10-15 years ago but that definitely ended by/in the Trump era.

steveBK123 3y ago
And the weird part of it all is how they have all moved to more and more restrictive paywalls over this time period. Why would I maintain 5-10 subscriptions for content that is 80% the same? I think the streaming video services are speed running the same issue. As a very casual TV watcher, why would I bother to pay $10ish each to NFLX, Disney, Hulu, Peacock, Paramount, HBO, Apple for the 1-2 shows each I may care about. In a way its not even the total cost, its maintaining accounts/billing info/worrying about cancellation policies across a dozen companies.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  5 Years ago I stopped sailing.... Today the winds are strong, and the sailing is very good...
tootie 3y ago
The NY/DC duopoly on media is largely because they have the footprint to be everywhere and write with depth and accuracy. Read the NYT and Axios and you'll have all you need on politics and world news. The ascent of independent media (the substack/podcast crowd) has started to take a huge bite out of the opinion/analysis market. The damage is coming in the middle. All the local newspapers and evening news shows are approaching irrelevance and it's going to be a disaster.
- steveBK123 3y ago
  Axios falls into the media reporting on media reporting on media trope that I absolutely hate. Twitter is full of enough of that already. The first thing I see when I land there today is "Scoop: How Trump's team egged him on during CNN town hall". Honestly - who cares. How is it even a story? Water is wet. I grew up reading a lot more business news because 1) a lot of time money is the tail that wags that dog and 2) it doesn't get caught up in these tropes as often. Bloomberg differentiates a lot from the Borg collective in that regard. Honestly the left probably needs a Murdoch style maniac to conglomerate left of center partisan media into one megacorp at this point before they all OEM themselves to death. Fox basically has the entire right of center mind share while the left of center battle for the same viewers by providing stunningly similar content.
  - tootie 3y ago
    I used to read WSJ more often but their Op-Ed page has really gone off the deep end into Trump cheerleading which is not what I expected. My primaries are probably NY Times and NPR really, but I like Axios and am watching Semafor with interest. Otherwise, I have a slate of indies I check in on (Marcy Wheeler and Claudia Sahm are always interesting), but I've genuinely lost some of that when I quit twitter. I like the CNN homepage just because it's so broad. Like I'll never seek out celebrity news, but it's good to see whatever has bubbled up to the top of the national consciousness. I don't think the left can really support a true maniac on par with Tucker Carlson. They tried Air America with Al Franken years ago and it was not bad, but didn't resonate. I remember a host trying to say the 2004 election was stolen by Republicans and I just turned it off. Don't remember who it was, but she didn't get any traction reading from the right-wing play book.
    - steveBK123 3y ago
      I don't mean the left needs a demagogue, I mean they need a business conglomerate to consolidate & compete. Another good alternative to WSJ is FT. FT & Bloomberg subscriptions cost about 10x what WSJ does though. For me I am happier paying for one (or both of them) + NYT, than 15 different NYT-alikes.

testHNac 3y ago

The problem is that Vice kind of stories are costly to produce. And are not sensational enough to get a lot of clicks. It's easier to do a typical 'Culture War' fear mongering type content and get easy clicks. Also, I think we are in an echo chamber where if you don't report on comment on the latest topic, you might be perceived to belong to the other side. The West seems to lump issues into "Good" vs "Evil". Leaving no space for News media in grey area to succeed. I can't think of any 'Moderate' News source that is massively successful. Most of the mainstream ones can easily be classified into one camp or the other. May be just degree of devotion to the camp differs.

RhodesianHunter 3y ago
NPR
- pirate787 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - jjulius 3y ago
    Perhaps because the idea is that we should be open to gender-affirming care being an option, rather than being banned? Let people make their own choices for themselves rather than telling them what they should and shouldn't be allowed to do to their own bodies. Some will regret that choice, yes, and we should also empathize with them, but we shouldn't deprive others of the same choice just because those individuals feel regret. Edit: This also feels like cherry-picking. Glancing a the https://text.npr.org/ https://text.npr.org/ URL from a sister thread shows some pretty moderate reading. For the sake of the argument, if we assume that this article is left-leaning, it's drowned out by a sea of otherwise moderate content.
  - foobarbecue 3y ago
    NPR is partially state-funded only in the sense that they have won some government grants, which cover less than 1% of their costs. (Edit: I just learned that if you include local stations and local governments, this number could be counted up to 10%.) As for their bias, they get a -4.6 on Ad Fontes https://adfontesmedia.com/npr-bias-and-reliability/ https://adfontesmedia.com/npr-bias-and-reliability/ .

trevin 3y ago

Vice seems to have fallen victim to the increased polarization and agenda-ridden stories that have swept up so many media companies. They used to report on unique angles, find edgy topics to talk about...the last few years they regurgitate the same left-leaning talking points that one can find in any number of other media outlets. They lost their soul and became what they probably used to hate.

phpisthebest 3y ago
>They lost their soul They accepted funding from large media companies (Disney), and got rid most of their founding members, and original employees replacing them with "journalists" that largely float around between those properties that "regurgitate the same left-leaning talking points"
- sundvor 3y ago
  And in between all that is a sprinkling of truly high quality journalists who are doing none of that crap. As I said elsewhere in this thread, I really hope they'll find a new home somewhere - where the context for their work is not being ruined by all the one sided culture wars "reporting". Oh, and all the drugs stuff. I'm truly over the divisiveness so prevalent seemingly everywhere. Please let some nuance in, perhaps magic will happen.
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    Given they were forced to file bankruptcy on behest of their creditors whom are taking over the company, both of which are highly political and partisan (including George Soros) I would not hold my breath for a return to "quality journalism" anytime soon
    - sundvor 3y ago
      I was specifically wishing for the actual quality journalists to find a better place to continue their excellent work.

kornhole 3y ago

The funding mechanism of these organizations reveals a lot about the trajectory. Some start out with a lot of seed money with few restrictions. If they start to rely on big advertisers or funding from 'philanthropists', the content is usually influenced by these sources. The best publications I find these days are funded by donations from readers. This keeps them independent and not beholden to those big funders. Fund the good organizations via Patreon, Locals, Substack, direct.. to keep them honest.

sillyfluke 3y ago

I find it strange that it seemingly isn't mentioned in the top comments but the thing that killed Vice was simple: twitter. It took down a lot of cultural media landmarks by usurping their relevance, Vice was one of the big ones. They needed to move at the speed of gossip with takes that were truly original in order to survive. they didn't.

AzzieElbab 3y ago

I just opened vice news from a North American location and went through the headlines. The politicization is through the roof, and the headlines do not match the context. I am sure there is a market for this type of journalism, but it is much smaller these days because every org left and right is doing it.