Why VICE works.

The alt-news /// sometimes adult content peddling news mini-empire VICE has undergone something of a makeover in recent months. Once the groddy, disgusting American Apparel of media, (or Terry Richardson of the moving pictures) VICE is now cool as fuck, and actually works (and may even be a viable business model, suck on these nuts, rest of print media). Their massively expanded presence in online and social media has not gone unnoticed, not to mentioned their Bill Maher produced news/travel series “VICE on HBO” along with their newly rolled out podcast platform, VICE is seriously kicking ass and taking names. All of this in an age when the zeitgeist is ‘get the fuck out of media, you’ll make less money than a monday afternoon stripper’

But VICE works. Despite the fact that VICE on HBO has been largely panned by critics, including the entire Slate culture podcast panel (with whom I often tongue in cheek agree with), VICE continues to produce some pretty incredible media. Vancouverites, look no further than their doc “Canada’s war on drugs” for some local content and familiar locales).

Imagine the ‘investigative’ journalism of the Daily Show, but without the obvious (sometimes low brow) punchlines.

VICE documents in ‘real time’ and with actual correspondents on the ground legitimately serious and impactful events. No more reporting on Turkey from London bullshit. VICE throw their correspondents into some seriously hairy situations. Embedded with rebels in Lybia, meeting with the Black Block in Greece, and illegally crossing boarders with North Korean refugees. Vice are like an exchange student with daddy’s credit card. Or your average politician after a few strong hits of acid; with no regard for personal safety, perception, and cultural sensitivity. Its like a snapshot into a 15 year old girls diary, gritty, unrefined, and probably shouldn’t be shared with the general public. But the result is just right, and the tone is spot on. VICE is exactly what we NEED right now. In an age where we are a tweet away from demonstrations in Turkey, or a Vine video away from understanding the European economic crisis (which I don’t have a fucking clue about…and I live in one of the worst effected countries). VICE actually does journalism. And when I say journalism, I mean produce meaningful, challenging content. Challenging the zeitgeist of tuning in to your distastefully partisan news outlet to get your canned bullshit perspectives. Its actually hilarious that after a big news story breaks one can typically guess the article titles found on FOX, MSNBC, Mother Jones, etc. After all, “journalism is saying what someone wants said, everything else is just public relations.”

So before Slate, or any other ‘news outlet’ decides to take a nice robust dump on VICE, I suggest they think long and hard about the crap they spew out of a daily basis before criticizing one of the most dynamic, underfunded, and challenging news ‘empires‘ at the current moment.

On a related note, check out this fucking incredible doc about the afghan war produced by / for VICE. Apparently it was originally meant to be aired on BBC, but BBC backed out after seeing parts of the content.

journalism, art, and the public. my two cents.

By S. Brennan

since i inadvertently joined what has been a very interesting and fruitful discussion on the place of public broadcasting in canada, it has got me thinking, not only about my previous statements about what is ‘uniquely canadian’ (despite the fact that the cbc on my xbmc media player has such a subcategory), but also about the role of journalism on  the whole in a ‘democratized’ environment. this won’t be concise, and it won’t be conclusive…but here we go:

i was breast fed on state sponsored radio, i am not going to try to hide my affinity for the work of the cbc, or my political persuasion, nor am i going to try to make you believe that the cbc is an irreplaceable asset that we as canadians could not do without. but first…should journalism be democratic?

i had the point raised that because the cbc uses primarily public funds that it has an obligation to reflect the opinions, or desires of the masses (among other questions about exactly who is responsible for programming to the masses, which i won’t get into here). i don’t necessarily think this is true, and furthermore i think this would be an awful idea, if put into practice.

literally ‘democratizing’ the news was briefly practiced by cnn, in which viewers were encouraged to ‘vote’ on a short list of news stories to be further explored, the results were at least a little disheartening. for me, keyboard cat and antoine dodson don’t exactly quality as cutting edge journalism. look no further than reddit, or any of the news subreddits to quality the argument that crowd sourcing the news can (and possibly often) leads to empirically poor or misinformed choices.

journalism, as i understand it, exists to keep you informed, or inform you of events of opinions you may not be aware of, or even interested in. i like the idea that the cbc attempts to exist in an environment where other countries would prefer to have two or three outlets exploring their predetermined perspective leaving us worse informed than before. journalism is massively competitive, and maybe it should be…but i think leaving one horse out of the race for funds, not interested in maximizing profit at the expense of well executed journalism is absolutely critical (as the distinction has been made with programs like doc zone and dispatches (r.i.p) and while i do feel this way, i also feel that in the age of personal rss feeds making this argument has become increasingly difficult.

what is uniquely canadian?

the point was raised that some of the cbc programming isn’t great. fact. some of fox or abc’s programming isn’t great…and its true that many of the programs on the cbc would be short lived if they existed on another network. i personally love, and revel in the poorly made cbc programs, i love the fact that we try, and let others try to work and explore what this country means to them. furthermore, art in canada needs to be, and is protected. the mere existence of the crtc speaks to this. imagine if only commercially successful art was created, in all mediums. we as a country, and as a society would be undoubtable worse off. think more nickelback and justin beiber and less of your grant supported starving artist, be they visual, musical, or otherwise.

the obvious counter argument is amanda palmers ted talk, in which she embraces the age of kickstarter and indiegogo changing the equation of how our passions and interests are realized. personally, i don’t see why we can’t have both.

save the cbc. let’s keep canada connected.

/endrant.

pps. on don cherry.

while not necessarily related i feel steven soderbergh address on the state of cinema reflects many of the sentiments i feel towards the cbc…take the money you would spent on a massive tent pole (don cherry), and spread it around, giving more canadians more access to more media that better reflects our increasingly diverse population. people revere don cherry like he is some sort of saint. i am not a sports journalist, barely a sports fan, but just as i was raised on the cbc, i was too raised on rock’em sock’em videos, in which don cherry personally profited off of the brain and bodily damage of hockey players, and is embarrassingly slow at embracing the societal impacts of the ‘sock’em’ empire on the next generation of nhl players. he brings in a fair amount of money from the cbc, but he isn’t immortal, and often i feel like he should have a censor, or muzzle, not poor ron mcclean sitting next to him. (i am ready for the hate comments from cherrys disciples).