|
For anyone that's interested — a wild interview between Dennis Rodman and George Stephanopoulos.
Rodman is the first American to ever meet with Kim Jong-Un.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/03/dennis-rodman-nkorea-lead_n_2801197.html
Money Quote from introduction.
"There is nobody at the CIA who can tell you more personally about Kim Jong Un than Dennis Rodman," remarked ABC News military analyst Col. Steve Ganyard, "and that in itself is scary."
After Rodman tells host George Stephanopoulos that he considers Kim Jong Un a "friend," a "great guy" and "very humble", George Stephanopoulos points out he's a sworn enemy of the United States and has banished at least 200,000 people in prison, Rodman makes a poorly thought out, barely coherent argument that I kind of understand — that, he thinks he's a great guy on a person-to-person level, not on a political level. And it's not like the United States hasn't done it's share of horrible things (although a 1990's reference to Monica Lewinsky's BJ is not one of them).
In a weird way, only Dennis Rodman could be an ambassador to North Korea. He's the only person crazy enough to hang out there for two days and actually enjoy it without getting himself killed.
|
anyone else notice that almost everyone is wearing all black in the picutures. Also, the picture with dennis, you can see the intense looks on the three security guards - and rodman's guard/whatever does not look happy at all...
|
VICE is definitely unlike any other source of news and journalism out there. Sure, their actions and methods of solicitation can be called controversial, but the raw material they present is basically a gold mine of information.
They seem to have no agenda, no political motives, not even a general idea of what issues they focus on. They simply go out and explore the most interesting and controversial topics around the globe, then present it in a style of personal experience. Not just some snappy news casted overview with no depth or realism. It's genius in my opinion.
|
^ This 100%. It's the simple fact that they don't have an agenda that makes them so valuable. They're not journalism, IMO. They're a primary source.
|
The gawker article is pretty fucking dumb.You could take pictures of starving african kids and post them inbetween twitter posts of any American celebrity as well. It isn't vices fault the country is full of starving kids.
|
On March 06 2013 02:54 Bosu wrote:
The gawker article is pretty fucking dumb.You could take pictures of starving african kids and post them inbetween twitter posts of any American celebrity as well. It isn't vices fault the country is full of starving kids.
At the end of the day, Gawker is just hella pissed that Vice is booming, getting HBO deals, and performing international diplomacy with the man who fought alongside Hulk Hogan in TWO, read that TWO, Bash at the Beach events. 
|
I love most of their docs, absolutely excited for this
edit: the gawker article is super-cute. bitter though
|
On March 06 2013 02:42 SamsungStar wrote:
^ This 100%. It's the simple fact that they don't have an agenda that makes them so valuable. They're not journalism, IMO. They're a primary source.
They do have an agenda, and it's money!
Very often they'll take a non-event and build drama around it, or twist the turn of events. I also suspect them to simply lie every now and then.
For example, that report on Karachi... at some point, they're with a bounty killer, right? It's a dude with a motorcycle helmet and a gun, in the dark. Well, if you're completely orientated towards "business&fun" like Vice, I don't see why they would bother looking for an actual killer. They're not a news source, so it isn't like they have anything to lose with moves like that.
They also love telling to the camera how dangerous things are, wether they are in fact stuck in a basement in Johanesburg or just walking around in Haïti.
Don't give Vice too much credit. Sure, it's interesting, but they're here to make money. And unlike reputed newspapers, what they sell is not information - what they sell is entertainment. The trust you put in news agencies comes from the fact that correctness and objectivity is at the heart of their trade, while Vice cares little about those two values and will sell regardless of their absence or presence.
|
On March 06 2013 02:54 Bosu wrote:
The gawker article is pretty fucking dumb.You could take pictures of starving african kids and post them inbetween twitter posts of any American celebrity as well. It isn't vices fault the country is full of starving kids.
It's sour grapes, and a little pre-emptive. We have no idea yet what story Vice is going to tell, and what they're going to do with their footage.
|
On March 06 2013 03:31 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2013 02:42 SamsungStar wrote:
^ This 100%. It's the simple fact that they don't have an agenda that makes them so valuable. They're not journalism, IMO. They're a primary source. They do have an agenda, and it's money! Very often they'll take a non-event and build drama around it, or twist the turn of events. I also suspect them to simply lie every now and then. For example, that report on Karachi... at some point, they're with a bounty killer, right? It's a dude with a motorcycle helmet and a gun, in the dark. Well, if you're completely orientated towards "business&fun" like Vice, I don't see why they would bother looking for an actual killer. They're not a news source, so it isn't like they have anything to lose with moves like that. They also love telling to the camera how dangerous things are, wether they are in fact stuck in a basement in Johanesburg or just walking around in Haïti. Don't give Vice too much credit. Sure, it's interesting, but they're here to make money. And unlike reputed newspapers, what they sell is not information - what they sell is entertainment. The trust you put in news agencies comes from the fact that correctness and objectivity is at the heart of their trade, while Vice cares little about those two values and will sell regardless of their absence or presence.
Yeah, I wouldn't describe VICE as apolitical, either. They're hipster capitalists, and I always saw their irreverance and apathy as a political position.
Still enjoy their willingness to 'create' news. A lot of news agencies manufacture 'news' by reprinting press releases or aggregrating and regurgitating other people's work.
I have a lot more respect for what VICE does than say the Huffington Post.
|
Yeah I have a hard time lending credence to your post Kuka when you say reputed newspapers sell information. Maybe in the past, but in today's day and age everyone's out for profit and has an agenda. Just naive to say otherwise. I'd say VICE is a lot more pure than some of those "reputed" media outlets.
|
They sell for profit, and their product is information. And if their product is bad, their sales will be bad.
Random newspapers sell stories, reputed newspapers sell information. Vice on the other hand doesn't even try, because their business area is entertainment.
I do agree, however, that Vice is interesting nonetheless, and that many newspapers are pure crap.
|
|
|
I really enjoyed their documentary on KazanTip (crazy party that goes for a whole month in Ukraine)
http://www.vice.com/music-world/raving-in-the-black-sea
The video is from 2007, last i checked this was the edited version, the original had little kids sucking girls tits to win t-shirts, women kissing dogs, and some other sick shit.
|
Did anyone watch the first episode on HBO?
|
|
|
On April 07 2013 14:49 TNK wrote:
Did anyone watch the first episode on HBO?
I watched it and it was some quality stuff. Interesting stories. Need to see a few more ep's to see the average quality but so far so good.
|
I was hooked on the VICE youtube channel for awhile. They cover some amazing stories without the artifice of a composed journalist deliver, as others said. Highly recommend.
|
So after watching the first two episodes, I think this show is pretty good. It is precisely as exploitative and "shocking" as one would expect, but it provides a lot of interesting information and images of parts of the world that are otherwise difficult to come upon. One thing I think they need to work on is host presentation and reporter savvy. The head guy needs to work on his introductions and speaking style; he is entirely too unaffected, and it comes off almost as disinterested, as though he truly is this rich ass white guy who doesn't really care about anything more than bringing shocking footage to light. Also, the reporter that went along for the North Korea segment looked like a scared child the entire time; I realize what he was doing was scary as hell, but come on......he even seemed scared of the battered NK women as he asked them questions.
All in all, good stuff with room for improvement in presentation.
|
dang whoever said teh magazine was free in the OP they lied to me 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
