5 ms·

Vice News used to be great and essentially apolitical. They went to interesting, dangerous places and reported what they saw by showing you what they saw. Their

Vice News used to be great and essentially apolitical. They went to interesting, dangerous places and reported what they saw by showing you what they saw. Their viewership grew rapidly. Fast-forward. All new Vice productions are deeply and uniformly opinionated. Comparatively few people care to watch. Relative to their previous work, this later work received no significant attention and generated no revenue. There is political groupthink in reporting ruinous to the bottom line.

Arkhaine_kupo 3y ago
> Vice News used to be great and essentially apolitical. One of the founders founded the proud boys. >They went to interesting, dangerous places and reported what they saw by showing you what they saw. They were rich nepo kids going into places and doing a ton of poverty porn. Seeing the inside of a favela on the eyes of a brooklyn kids whose dad makes pharma patents was edgy in 2000s but boy does it not hold up. > All new Vice productions are deeply and uniformly opinionated. Same as ever, nepo babies think they know everything. If you go back you see plenty of it in their early stuff too. You were just younger and noticed it less. > this later work received no significant attention and generated no revenue. By 2012 they had already completely sold out when they sold the mag to i-D and still where making massive numbers. They are being sold now for 225 million despite their bankruptcy. > There is political groupthink in reporting ruinous to the bottom line. Fox News is the most overt political entertainment network in the planet and also the most profitable. Seems like your theory is entirely at odds with reality and your rose tinted glasses of gonzo Vice is mostly ignoring the actual content of the magazine.
- golergka 3y ago
  > One of the founders founded the proud boys. That's ad hominem, not a counter argument about Vice's content. > They were rich nepo kids going into places and doing a ton of poverty porn. Seeing the inside of a favela on the eyes of a brooklyn kids whose dad makes pharma patents was edgy in 2000s but boy does it not hold up. Yes, so? This description is good journalism. You're just trying to come up with derogatory terms to describe it, while there's nothing wrong with any of that.
  - sophacles 3y ago
    It's not ad hominem in the context of discussing bias to point out that a person who founded one biased organization also founded a political advocacy group (aka another by-definion biased organaization), it is describing a pattern.
    - LanceH 3y ago
      Taking one data point and extrapolating a quality onto the other isn't a "pattern".
      - sophacles 3y ago
        Bad extrapolation is not ad hominem either.
    - emaginniss 3y ago
      Robert Kennedy Jr is a crazy anti-vax nutjob, therefore, all of his work on environmentalism is invalid and the entire cause of environmentalism is suspect. Is that how this works?
      - sophacles 3y ago
        Of course not, don't be silly: 1. Saying a person founded a group is not an attack, insulting them is. 2. The relationship between a vaccine stance and an environmental stance is weak, if existent at all. The relationship of a political advocacy group and a media outlet is pretty strong - that is "i have something to say and the tools to say it loudly and widely" is a common pattern among those with the means (religions, wealthy folks, political fringe groups, etc). It's not ad-hominem to say "this new MLM Bernie Madoff is promoting is very similar to the ponzi scheme he was previously convicted of" either. 3. It's not ad-hominem to declare that a persons actions are consistent with their stated goals - it's not an attack, nor is it an attempt at discrediting (or supporting) their position. It is ad-hominem to say "unrelated opinions about vaccines discredit this environmental opinion".
  - the_gastropod 3y ago
- MrFantastic 3y ago
  The Proud Boys started as a joke by a former Punk Singer. Punks ideology was based on anti-racist and anti-sexist beliefs, They didn't realize that there was a real audience for their satire and the group was Co-opted by actual racists. A similar thing happened to the Tea Party which was anti-1%'res which is now controlled by their corporate donors. It's new name is the House Freedom Caucus and they want to default on US debt.
  - Slava_Propanei 3y ago
    [dead]
- lost_tourist 3y ago
  That's a lot of accusations without even a small blurb article of support? Fox news has always been a profitable disaster since it's earliest days.
- cj 3y ago
  I used to watch Vice News Tonight religiously and (at the time, at least) the quality on journalism was miles above CNN, Fox News, etc. The main thing I remember about it (which may still be true today) is it was the only daily TV source of relatively unbiased reporting that includes world issues and isn't 100% focused on reporting within the USA.
otikik 3y ago
Nothing is apolitical. If you don’t talk about politics then your position is “I am fine with the way things are now”, which is political.
- ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
  Either your comment is apolitical or you're saying you're fine with everything happening in politics right now, and I somewhat doubt the latter.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  No. I can say that Biden isn't up to the job, and that Trump is a wanna-be dictator who should not be given a second chance at pulling it off. That's apolitical, in that I'm not shilling for either side, but I'm sure not fine with the way things are now. I'm just also not fine with the other side's proposed solution.
  - swores 3y ago
    Commenting on good or bad aspects of politicians is literally as far from being apolitical as can be, regardless of if you feel you're being neutral between different parties.
  - cool_dude85 3y ago
    No, these are both political statements, sorry.
  - plemer 3y ago
    I think you’re conflating “partisan” with “political”.
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      All right, how about if I say that society is messed up in some real ways (including politically), and the solution is not going to come from politics, because the problem fundamentally is not a political one? That's not a political statement (unless you have a very expansive definition of "political"[1]), but it's still not "I am fine with the way things are now". [1] And if literally everything is political... then nothing is.

Arkhaine_kupo 3y ago

> Vice News used to be great and essentially apolitical. One of the founders founded the proud boys. >They went to interesting, dangerous places and reported what they saw by showing you what they saw. They were rich nepo kids going into places and doing a ton of poverty porn. Seeing the inside of a favela on the eyes of a brooklyn kids whose dad makes pharma patents was edgy in 2000s but boy does it not hold up. > All new Vice productions are deeply and uniformly opinionated. Same as ever, nepo babies think they know everything. If you go back you see plenty of it in their early stuff too. You were just younger and noticed it less. > this later work received no significant attention and generated no revenue. By 2012 they had already completely sold out when they sold the mag to i-D and still where making massive numbers. They are being sold now for 225 million despite their bankruptcy. > There is political groupthink in reporting ruinous to the bottom line. Fox News is the most overt political entertainment network in the planet and also the most profitable. Seems like your theory is entirely at odds with reality and your rose tinted glasses of gonzo Vice is mostly ignoring the actual content of the magazine.

golergka 3y ago
> One of the founders founded the proud boys. That's ad hominem, not a counter argument about Vice's content. > They were rich nepo kids going into places and doing a ton of poverty porn. Seeing the inside of a favela on the eyes of a brooklyn kids whose dad makes pharma patents was edgy in 2000s but boy does it not hold up. Yes, so? This description is good journalism. You're just trying to come up with derogatory terms to describe it, while there's nothing wrong with any of that.
- sophacles 3y ago
  It's not ad hominem in the context of discussing bias to point out that a person who founded one biased organization also founded a political advocacy group (aka another by-definion biased organaization), it is describing a pattern.
  - LanceH 3y ago
    Taking one data point and extrapolating a quality onto the other isn't a "pattern".
    - sophacles 3y ago
      Bad extrapolation is not ad hominem either.
  - emaginniss 3y ago
    Robert Kennedy Jr is a crazy anti-vax nutjob, therefore, all of his work on environmentalism is invalid and the entire cause of environmentalism is suspect. Is that how this works?
    - sophacles 3y ago
      Of course not, don't be silly: 1. Saying a person founded a group is not an attack, insulting them is. 2. The relationship between a vaccine stance and an environmental stance is weak, if existent at all. The relationship of a political advocacy group and a media outlet is pretty strong - that is "i have something to say and the tools to say it loudly and widely" is a common pattern among those with the means (religions, wealthy folks, political fringe groups, etc). It's not ad-hominem to say "this new MLM Bernie Madoff is promoting is very similar to the ponzi scheme he was previously convicted of" either. 3. It's not ad-hominem to declare that a persons actions are consistent with their stated goals - it's not an attack, nor is it an attempt at discrediting (or supporting) their position. It is ad-hominem to say "unrelated opinions about vaccines discredit this environmental opinion".
- the_gastropod 3y ago
MrFantastic 3y ago
The Proud Boys started as a joke by a former Punk Singer. Punks ideology was based on anti-racist and anti-sexist beliefs, They didn't realize that there was a real audience for their satire and the group was Co-opted by actual racists. A similar thing happened to the Tea Party which was anti-1%'res which is now controlled by their corporate donors. It's new name is the House Freedom Caucus and they want to default on US debt.
- Slava_Propanei 3y ago
  [dead]
lost_tourist 3y ago
That's a lot of accusations without even a small blurb article of support? Fox news has always been a profitable disaster since it's earliest days.
cj 3y ago
I used to watch Vice News Tonight religiously and (at the time, at least) the quality on journalism was miles above CNN, Fox News, etc. The main thing I remember about it (which may still be true today) is it was the only daily TV source of relatively unbiased reporting that includes world issues and isn't 100% focused on reporting within the USA.

otikik 3y ago

Nothing is apolitical. If you don’t talk about politics then your position is “I am fine with the way things are now”, which is political.

ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
Either your comment is apolitical or you're saying you're fine with everything happening in politics right now, and I somewhat doubt the latter.
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
No. I can say that Biden isn't up to the job, and that Trump is a wanna-be dictator who should not be given a second chance at pulling it off. That's apolitical, in that I'm not shilling for either side, but I'm sure not fine with the way things are now. I'm just also not fine with the other side's proposed solution.
- swores 3y ago
  Commenting on good or bad aspects of politicians is literally as far from being apolitical as can be, regardless of if you feel you're being neutral between different parties.
- cool_dude85 3y ago
  No, these are both political statements, sorry.
- plemer 3y ago
  I think you’re conflating “partisan” with “political”.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    All right, how about if I say that society is messed up in some real ways (including politically), and the solution is not going to come from politics, because the problem fundamentally is not a political one? That's not a political statement (unless you have a very expansive definition of "political"[1]), but it's still not "I am fine with the way things are now". [1] And if literally everything is political... then nothing is.