5 ms·
Vice is known, within the media world, for being pretty much the one news publication that's profitable and growing. The entire news industry is falling apart a
by jonnathanson 12y ago
Vice is known, within the media world, for being pretty much the one news publication that's profitable and growing. The entire news industry is falling apart at the seams, and Vice is kicking ass. That kind of thing gets you noticed by other media companies, who want a piece of whatever it is you're doing right.
So what is Vice is doing right? Interesting, relevant, investigative journalism that is not playing to the lowest common denominator (certain sections notwithstanding). More important, it's not burdened by the legacy cost structures and operating silos that bigger, more established media companies are. Vice today is sort of like what CNN was in its early days, or if you'll extend the courtesy of indulging a somewhat wild comparison, it's similar to what MTV was in the early '80s. It's a fresh company, with a young audience, and a disciplined editorial focus.
I wouldn't compare Vice to Buzzfeed, necessarily. Both of them mystify and intrigue old-media companies. But old-media companies have an easier time grokking Vice than they do Buzzfeed. Or, at the very least, they seem to believe Vice is here to stay, while Buzzfeed and its ilk might fade.
"But it seems like they want on TV more than anything else."
Yes, and that's my best guess as to why they'd raise $500 million. You don't raise $500M to scale out your blogging and journalism efforts. You raise $500M because TV production is ridiculously expensive, and you almost need $500M if you're going to be producing a large, running slate of TV programming. (Benchmark comparison: for its original series, Netflix spends anywhere up to $30-$50M per season. News programming and other forms of non-scripted programming are less expensive than, say, "House of Cards." Nevertheless, they ain't cheap).
- basch 12y agoWhat the rest of the news world doesn't get, is that Vice and Comedy Central are winning because they feel sincere. It's all about sincerity and authenticity. Why do young people still connect with Vice, The Atlantic, The Guardian, BBC, WSJ, The New York Times, Slate, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, John Oliver, Craig Ferguson, Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon, Reddit? Why does a generation who grew up distrusting the establishment (Fight Club) and main stream media trust 'these' mainstream media sources. Satire is the new Walter Cronkite & Brian Williams & Matt Lauer. Lauer sounds like a puppet, Colbert sounds like a leader. People don't want authority figures telling them what to think directly. We are post modern now, we need to form our opinions by mocking things that don't make sense. People are only willing to hear the truth if its somewhat veiled in hyperbolic mockery and rhetoric. Vice and Comedy Central cross the authenticity of the WSJ/NYT with the entertainment of MTV and speak to the Nickelodeon generation in a way FOX/CNN/MSNBC seem unable to even grasp. (Even the pandering of VOX/UPWORTHY/SALON/GAWKER and the outrage division of journalism is starting to feel pretty damn stale, insincere, and produced.) And they can't grasp it because they are too busy clutching to the coattails and wiggling their heads up the asses of an antiquated but equally bored voting block, baby boomers. It's telling that one man owns at least part of Vice, WSJ, and Fox News. They all pander to different populations. He doesn't care if he sells three different narratives, as long as youre paying attention to one of the things he is saying.
- skinnymuch 12y agoI guess I haven't paid too much attention to Salon and Slate. I always confuse them. Why do you consider Salon pandering and always in outrage, but not Slate? I do agree Salon does do that. Does Slate not?
- basch 12y agothey do less. slate feels closer to the atlantic while salon feels closer to huffington post. they all cross into each others territory sometimes.