I've said it before and I'll say it again: Vice is propaganda for hipsters.

Absolutely but they have done some pretty good reports I'll give them that. But you're totally right

Good reports? Hardly, it's maybe better than YoungTurd, that is your saying.

Their original 6 part series that was Netflix, Vice guide to travel, was intriguing. Now that they are more mainstream people are bound to have this criticism but they still cover more stories then most other mainstream sources

There in HBO and people think they're not propaganda?

his son is on the board of directors now too I think. Vice is long gone. Shane did an AMA here last year and got so pissed off when someone asked about Murdoch lol

Shane Smith isn't fooling anyone. When i heard Murdoch was getting involved with Vice, i stopped paying attention to them. To me they barely exist.

Shane did an AMA here last year and got so pissed off when someone asked about Murdoch lol

link maybe?

Here you are

Thanks. His response is really telling.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

I hate searching on reddit, i can never find what i'm looking for...it was probably around this time last year though if that helps

Restrict search to the sub you want. Surely 'Vice' would find it

I know people who have written for vice, they pay shit... something like 50$ an article and everybody knows they're owned by Murdoch now. No one is arguing that they're edgy and adversarial.

[deleted]

Oh yeah. It's a great way for writers to get some attention and jumpstart their career, no question. Also they don't have an agenda persay but I think OP's point was for all their bluster about being anti establishment they just gave the president a rimjob instead of talking about anything of value or depth.

They don't have to specifically be controlled opposition to be cowards.

I didn't know that.

It's been a huge deal for a while. When they were aquired a lot of people did think pieces on whether or not this mean they were going to stay edgy. It's also been pointed out several times that they're owned by a billionaire but they still pay a pittance to their writers.

They weren’t acquired, they sold off a 5% stake for capital funding. It’s fucking sketch that it is Murdoch, but the man is a business man. I don’t see Shane Smith being a sell out, but I do see it as impossible for an actual interview to occur with a sitting president.

Exactly you can't have an edgy interview with POTUS and elect it to go anywhere or be vetted before the interview. The fact both the POTUS and VP gave them an interview shows they're at least stepping up their game from the trashy punk shit they used to publish. It'll give them more of a voice if they act like the rest of the major news media.

Lmao as long as this isn't anotherm limited hangout snowden post... I'm all in. Definitely something weird about vice.. And I've done a lot of reading on it. Vice even came and interviewed my friends and I last year for some documentary they were doing. I get a strange vibe from their employees. Nowadays they want to just become a top multimedia company.. Fuck being edgy and adversarial. I gave up on vice.. Now I just read a select writer here and there from select papers and websites. Ahh who knows. Money and success corrupts

George is trying to use the phrase "limited hangout" in more contexts so that his description of Snowden as a "limited hangout" has more meaning. He's still "limited hangout" mindfucking people, imo.

6 day old account breaks silence just to demonize the OP showing obviousness of vice and its BS. Riiiight.

He called out the one nuance to his madness. If you don't know how much he has pushed the idea of Snowden being a limited hangout you don't come here often lol

I knew it was propaganda since I saw their hack jobs on libya and syria.

As soon as it was announced it confirmed my suspicions about vice. In other news, AL Jazeera is reporting about Russia's "imperialism" and NK's "nukes" while ignoring the friggin United States lol! Sigh one by one they fall

You knew vice had sold out (really they sold out years ago) when they started talking with that stupid 'TV-News Reporter Cadence' when they were doing their lil HBO reports.

RT

theres is no news, the television is dead there is only the news we take from here and decide what is true... anyways just be intelligent. nutural progression is getting tech savy

I haven't had cable in years, and use my TV only to play video games or Netflix etc. It's becoming increasingly alarming that the mighty dollar is taking over many online sources as well. I'm right there with you, analyzing every source with an open mind is the way to go, but even that can be an exercise in futility nowadays. But as always I will stay vigilant and try to take the people I meet with me

to be fair, al jazeera's USS liberty docco was great

And here I was thinking, "Hey, /u/George_Tenet finally posted something other than limited hangout broken record bullshit."

It might be a broken record, but it's 100% true, and is such an important topic, it needs to continually be brought up so people really understand who Edward Snowden truly is, and who he works for.

I respect your opinion, and I do agree in principle, but I think one user obsessively posting and commenting about a single subject is edging into spam territory (no, I am not accusing /u/George_Tenet of spamming, I'm making a nuanced point). My issue in this case is, the claim that this interview is limited hangout simply isn't true. It's a puff piece, yes, and a complete load of bullshit, sure, but not LH. Which kind of feeds into my point, that this user has become so obsessed with a single subject that their bias is muddying otherwise worthwhile debate.

By using the definition in a tight and accurate manner.

At least this is a more subtle approach.

Thank you, O Enlightened One.

Yeah they definitely went from legitimate to crap in under 60 seconds. Very disappointing.

You can't just rake the president over the coals. That's just how it works. Pre-screened questions, and an approval of the final cut. Not a conspiracy. Not an indictment on Vice.

Aaaaand the Murdoch connection...

Vice is following an old strategy that has worked with many news websites, newspapers, tv-shows, hell even politicians. Great and alternative at the beginning, then slowly gets worse while people can't catch up and still think it's as awesome as it once was. You always need to be dynamic.

tl;dr: Vice was pretty good once, but is now increasingly pro-establishment.

It's really just an age-old, cliche sell out story.

Just like google, facebook, reddit, watsapp or watever

They need the user base. So they start by appeasing them. Once they have the users on board, they begin to fuck them.

Use your head, of course they're pre-screened questions, it's Obama. Still better than mainstream media. I don't have a hard-on for VICE but I don't understand all the hate either, it's like you want VICE to life up to their old indie standards when they're massive now.

At least Shane got Obama to admit that ISIS is a product of US intervention in the Middle-East.

Stop trying to link everything to limited hangout.

So you agree they are not meant to be anything other than another distraction for the masses? Yes.

Also, if you think it is as simple as "aww shucks, we messed around over there and now people hate us MORE!!", then that is the effect working just as intended.

They didn't indirectly create that group....they are directly responsible for funding and supplying them. The made their own boogieman......again.

People write books about this you know, "In search of enemies: A CIA story". It works so they keep doing it and people keep buying it.

So you agree they are not meant to be anything other than another distraction for the masses? Yes.

What isn't? Video games, books, TV, night clubs, any media, social clubs, sports. Everything is a distraction. So what are we supposed to be looking at? We're all humans just trying to enjoy the time we have here.

VICE is shit media, and honestly a lot of their stories are very bias, sarcastic and condescending, especially their work in SE Asia. VICE News is a lot better than their main channel and sometimes produces quality work. The two channels should be viewed separately, even if they have the same management. One is bullshit entertainment, the other is journalism (even if you think it's poor quality).

As for ISIS, there's no clear sources saying they directly funded them. Unless you can provide some? and don't link me the pic of John McCain meeting with ISIS leaders before they became ISIS. A real source.

ISIS of course took a lot of money and weaponry from Iraq and other countries storage when they stormed over the middle east, but USA didn't want that to happen. War lines the pockets of American elite, but I think sometimes you give them too much credit.

It's obvious to them that bombing indiscriminately is going to cause people to help out "terrorist" groups. If you have no job, no education, no future, and USA just blew up your brother, fuck yeah you're going to fight back. USA knew this and created a problem. USA also want to maintain control in that area and ISIS has made that very hard, they don't want to fund ISIS.

ISIS/ISIL/IS is giving the US a reason to spend more and entrench more in the name of maintaining control, so long term ISIS has not "made that very hard"

but USA didn't want that to happen.

Didn't they? They left all the equipment behind and when they FUNDED these people....they allowed them to take it.

Do you honestly believe that if they were in the business of stopping terrorism, they wouldn't have thought of that?

You live in a world where the grass is still green and the flowers still bloom and say good morning to you. That is the distraction.....you think this isn't a game. They're gaming you.....they're gaming all of us. What else are you going to think when you keep listening to the TV and reading the NYT's? Total objectivity? Or a BUSINESS who's job is to stay in business?

Welcome to the game.

They went off the cliff for me when they ran their disgusting "Russian Roulette" series, which painted the Ukraine crisis as Russian aggression. It's been obvious ever since.

Seeing how viciously anti-gun they are, I never really thought they were "anti-establishment".

Yeah in their "Gun Crazy America" documentary they interview this guy who manufactures "80% AR-15 Receivers", a receiver that requires only minimal machining to make a functioning, serial number free, and LEGAL AR-15.

They demonize this guy and make him out to be a nutjob, but he gave them one of my favorite quotes of all time:

"I want to live in a world where a gay-married couple can legally defend their pot farm with fully automatic weapons."

I remember that quote. I thought it was weird that he wouldn't wish for a world where the gay married couple didn't need to defend themselves at all.

Well there's an ideal world and an ideal yet realistic world. Most people don't want to have to defend themselves but unfortunately some people will inevitably have to.

Sensible laws will NOT stop people from being violent, from stealing, from hurting others. Sensible laws CAN allow things like gay marriage, legal marijuana cultivation, and the right to firearms.

Such is life in corporate USSA.

Imagine if someone like Greenwald interviewed POTUS, eh GT?

Hah! I don't dislike you. ;)

This made me think of a scene from the new season of House of Cards(tiny spoiler) where Frank Underwood(as President) is being interviewed on Colbert's show and Colbert is just hammering him, making fun of his policies, calling him out on things and the like. Can you imagine Colbert doing that to Obama? He'd have to conceal his boner first, and even then it's quite unlikely.

These media types and the sycophants who slop their jocks like they can do know wrong have a tough guy mindset where they imagine all the things hard questions they'd ask him and catch him in this or that untruth, but when they actually get the chance they suck his dick on camera and the seals in the audience gladly clap along.

Example: John Stewart vs Donald Rumsfeld

Oh, but give him someone with no actual power like Jim Cramer or the Crossfire guys and his bravery gene suddenly kicks in and he pounds them into submission.

sad to hear but not surprising. I think instead of labeling news sources as good or bad. We need to become critical viewers, recognizing spin. I have gained some from Vice, I have also seen some bullshit just like most other news sources.

Vice has sucked for over the last 4-5 years.

This is a surprise to anyone? I guess I'm the only one that saw the laughable Chicago gang violence episode...

Their FP pieces are always nice, you can see the CIA op commander behind the camera's typing in their teleprompter.

So a question I have is then, where can I get true news? None of this censored, or bias based crap. It's aggravating how clouded things are. Is there anywhere to get the real stuff?

I wouldn't recommend putting all of my faith into one source, or trusting any sole source entirely.

The bigger an organization becomes, the more likely it will become prone to corruption and subversion.

That's not to say such entities can not still produce useful information every now and then, which can and will be utilized if necessary.

It's simple really: They were on there way to being a real force, but then ideologically-minded Murdoch got involved, threw nutty money at Smith & that was pretty much that.

Im nust glad simon from Ukraine finally admitted there us a lot of Nazism within the Ukrainian army.

they are trying to humanize him so when people wake up they dont do him what they did to gaddafi, but I bet barry would like that just give him a line and everything is grand, hell probably start cheering his own death on, the death cultist he is.

You do know that to even get an interview with a world leader, any world leader, the interviewer has to agree to the vetted questions? If they don't, no interview. And if they are in an interview and they ask a question that hasn't been approved, the interview is over, and they get nothing in return. The recording's confiscated, they're kicked out, and no interview will ever happen again.

This is only one point of view. Because if its true it would suck.

Ima give vice a chance

As soon as it was announced it confirmed my suspicions about vice. In other news, AL Jazeera is reporting about Russia's "imperialism" and NK's "nukes" while ignoring the friggin United States lol! Sigh one by one they fall

And here I was thinking, "Hey, /u/George_Tenet finally posted something other than limited hangout broken record bullshit."

So you agree they are not meant to be anything other than another distraction for the masses? Yes.

What isn't? Video games, books, TV, night clubs, any media, social clubs, sports. Everything is a distraction. So what are we supposed to be looking at? We're all humans just trying to enjoy the time we have here.

VICE is shit media, and honestly a lot of their stories are very bias, sarcastic and condescending, especially their work in SE Asia. VICE News is a lot better than their main channel and sometimes produces quality work. The two channels should be viewed separately, even if they have the same management. One is bullshit entertainment, the other is journalism (even if you think it's poor quality).

As for ISIS, there's no clear sources saying they directly funded them. Unless you can provide some? and don't link me the pic of John McCain meeting with ISIS leaders before they became ISIS. A real source.

ISIS of course took a lot of money and weaponry from Iraq and other countries storage when they stormed over the middle east, but USA didn't want that to happen. War lines the pockets of American elite, but I think sometimes you give them too much credit.

It's obvious to them that bombing indiscriminately is going to cause people to help out "terrorist" groups. If you have no job, no education, no future, and USA just blew up your brother, fuck yeah you're going to fight back. USA knew this and created a problem. USA also want to maintain control in that area and ISIS has made that very hard, they don't want to fund ISIS.

Absolutely but they have done some pretty good reports I'll give them that. But you're totally right

Thank you, O Enlightened One.

There in HBO and people think they're not propaganda?

By using the definition in a tight and accurate manner.

At least this is a more subtle approach.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Their original 6 part series that was Netflix, Vice guide to travel, was intriguing. Now that they are more mainstream people are bound to have this criticism but they still cover more stories then most other mainstream sources

Thanks. His response is really telling.