mainstreaming of VICE // VICE mainstream

Patrick Swayze

I'm trying to shut up
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
 

Leo

Well-known member
murdoch also bought myspace for $580 million and ended up ditching it for $30 million, so he doesn't always have the midas touch.
 

Patrick Swayze

I'm trying to shut up
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

there are no accidents
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

I'm trying to shut up
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

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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.
 

datwun

Well-known member
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

Well-known member
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

Administrator
Rooster CCO [/Vice co-founder] Gavin McInnes Asked to Take Leave of Absence Following transphobic Thought Catalog essay, boycott

http://www.adweek.com/news/advertis...gavin-mcinnes-asked-take-leave-absence-159536

rxo8ufpxy6pb0arb62cl.png
 

zhao

there are no accidents
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.
 
Top