There's a rhyme that ends with "go broke"... I have seen a number of rather toxic Vice articles in the past few years, I wonder how profitable that turned out to be? I have a vague memory of them being edgy and interesting, but that's a long time ago.
Still, I'm sure I only saw fragments of their total body of work so it might be a skewed perception. My sympathies for those affected, these are tough times we are entering.
I don't want to name any specific examples to avoid derailing this discussion, but I've seen a few articles that were so bewilderingly incorrect that it almost seemed like the author somehow didn't have a good grasp of the English language or something. There weren't a huge number of them, but there were a few.
The thing then is: should I then trust other articles? I don't mind if publications have a political bent, either to the left or right, or if some opinion piece has some pretty far-out ridiculous views on something or the other (within limits). But journalistic pieces and even opinion pieces should get basic facts right and they shouldn't blatantly misquote people. I don't want to research and verify everything in-depth, so there needs to be some trust relationship between a publisher and the reader.
Every publication makes mistakes. It happens. But at some point the mistakes become severe enough that the trust starts to disappear. Misleading outrage drives attention, clicks, and views in the short term, but the long-term effects may be quite destructive if you're not careful.
I understand that the topic is contentious indeed, but I agree fully. I tried to be balanced in my comment, but even hinting at a certain possible content profile caused some upset it seems.
I also see now that they've published several high quality non-political eg warzone pieces recently; that's a real loss. I'm hoping these journalists will find a new space going forward, without the other baggage.
This view is under appreciated. I honestly do not care all that much if a news source has a political point of view, so long as it is _honest_. If they're honest I can deal with it. If I am interested in a labor dispute and I go to "world communist daily revolution worldwide" for their take and "capitalist Ayn Rand weekly" for their take, if both are honest between the two I can probably figure out what's actually happening.
It's possible to look at the same set of facts and to interpret them differently depending on perspective. I accept this, but _please_, can we come to agree to the same set of facts?
The problem is we're well past cherry-picking facts and well into making things up from whole cloth. The amount of 'news' that I read that is just absurdly wrong is disturbing. As soon as I find out a source seems to intentionally lie to me I discard it entirely. I'm more or less out of sources at this point.
Still, I'm sure I only saw fragments of their total body of work so it might be a skewed perception. My sympathies for those affected, these are tough times we are entering.