I've always been at least peripherally aware of Vice News more or less in terms of how it bills itself: investigative journalism that focuses on a personal immersion within an area of interest or particular subculture in order to convey information in a way that's ostensibly more meaningful than traditional coverage. I'd see videos come up here and there as suggestions when browsing some of the more sordid parts of Youtube, or just in general when browsing the web (often through social media).
Only recently have I actually taken a serious look at their journalistic content, and at first glance, there seems to be a lot of honestly fascinating mini-documentaries available through their website. Having now watched a few of these, I'm personally very much enjoying a lot of their stories, particularly those that examine underrepresented or unexamined segments of a particular society.
My question hinges on the fact that, for whatever reason, I feel guilty for my initial enjoyment of Vice. Maybe it's the fact that for every video about Japanese biker gangs, there's a bevy of other videos completely devoid of journalistic meaning and seemingly filmed just for lulz (what the hell is the point of those "On Acid" videos?) Maybe it's that some of their videos seem controversial for the sake of being controversial. Didn't some weird MRA guy own Vice for awhile (correct me if I'm wrong)? Maybe that's it. Or maybe it's for a variety of irrational reasons that have no basis in reality.
I guess what I'm asking is what the prevailing perception and understanding of Vice as a news organization is, particularly here on GAF. This is primarily out of curiosity -- I don't really intend to stop watching Vice (unless there's something inexcusable about the company that one of y'all brings to light). I just don't have a great grasp on where it sits on the spectrum of journalistic integrity or quality, having not heard much of a consensus one way or the other. So, GAF, enlighten me. Save me from my own naivete in thinking these edgy videos are actually worth a damn. Or, conversely, tell me that I'm overthinking it and that Vice is just as it presents itself, namely great investigate journalism covering groundbreaking stories.
Only recently have I actually taken a serious look at their journalistic content, and at first glance, there seems to be a lot of honestly fascinating mini-documentaries available through their website. Having now watched a few of these, I'm personally very much enjoying a lot of their stories, particularly those that examine underrepresented or unexamined segments of a particular society.
My question hinges on the fact that, for whatever reason, I feel guilty for my initial enjoyment of Vice. Maybe it's the fact that for every video about Japanese biker gangs, there's a bevy of other videos completely devoid of journalistic meaning and seemingly filmed just for lulz (what the hell is the point of those "On Acid" videos?) Maybe it's that some of their videos seem controversial for the sake of being controversial. Didn't some weird MRA guy own Vice for awhile (correct me if I'm wrong)? Maybe that's it. Or maybe it's for a variety of irrational reasons that have no basis in reality.
I guess what I'm asking is what the prevailing perception and understanding of Vice as a news organization is, particularly here on GAF. This is primarily out of curiosity -- I don't really intend to stop watching Vice (unless there's something inexcusable about the company that one of y'all brings to light). I just don't have a great grasp on where it sits on the spectrum of journalistic integrity or quality, having not heard much of a consensus one way or the other. So, GAF, enlighten me. Save me from my own naivete in thinking these edgy videos are actually worth a damn. Or, conversely, tell me that I'm overthinking it and that Vice is just as it presents itself, namely great investigate journalism covering groundbreaking stories.
