Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vice files for Bankruptcy

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 173 posts

Re: Vice files for Bankruptcy

#91

Post by groestl »

booleandilemma wrote: post #89
chmod775 wrote: post #31

Some years ago they had a large audience, me included, who got great value out of their investigative journalism. At some point they started pivoting into some weird form of advocacy journalism and clickbait garbage, alienating their existing audience, and apparently failing to find a new one. Good riddance.

The core problem is that people don't want to pay for news. You can see this right here on HN. Just submit a paywalled article and the top comment will be a link to the archive.org version.

I want to pay for news. I just don't want to pay for every news platform there is on this world, searately, because some manager somewhere decides that this will push the brand (same applies for movies, songs, etc) (not to go against your argument, I'm just elaborating on it)

Re: Vice files for Bankruptcy

#92

Post by mysterydip »

booleandilemma wrote: post #89
chmod775 wrote: post #31

Some years ago they had a large audience, me included, who got great value out of their investigative journalism. At some point they started pivoting into some weird form of advocacy journalism and clickbait garbage, alienating their existing audience, and apparently failing to find a new one. Good riddance.

The core problem is that people don't want to pay for news. You can see this right here on HN. Just submit a paywalled article and the top comment will be a link to the archive.org version.

I think part of the problem is the distributed nature of news sources. I don't want to have 20 separate subscriptions to different news sources to manage. I would pay for one site if I could get all my news there, but a single site a) can't cover everything and b) has its own biases.

Re: Vice files for Bankruptcy

#94

Post by j33zusjuice »

mysterydip wrote: post #92
booleandilemma wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core problem is that people don't want to pay for news. You can see this right here on HN. Just submit a paywalled article and the top comment will be a link to the archive.org version.

I think part of the problem is the distributed nature of news sources. I don't want to have 20 separate subscriptions to different news sources to manage. I would pay for one site if I could get all my news there, but a single site a) can't cover everything and b) has its own biases.

Apple News+? I think you get access to NYT, WaPo, and a bunch of other paywalled stuff.

Re: Vice files for Bankruptcy

#95

Post by nequo »

groestl wrote: post #91
booleandilemma wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core problem is that people don't want to pay for news. You can see this right here on HN. Just submit a paywalled article and the top comment will be a link to the archive.org version.

I want to pay for news. I just don't want to pay for every news platform there is on this world, searately, because some manager somewhere decides that this will push the brand (same applies for movies, songs, etc) (not to go against your argument, I'm just elaborating on it)

That’s how we used to pay for newspapers though. Cable companies use bundling instead and you get a lot of crap that you don’t need but they price discriminate you into.

Re: Vice files for Bankruptcy

#96

Post by alistairSH »

groestl wrote: post #91
booleandilemma wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The core problem is that people don't want to pay for news. You can see this right here on HN. Just submit a paywalled article and the top comment will be a link to the archive.org version.

I want to pay for news. I just don't want to pay for every news platform there is on this world, searately, because some manager somewhere decides that this will push the brand (same applies for movies, songs, etc) (not to go against your argument, I'm just elaborating on it)

Agreed.

My solution was to subscribe to one reasonable newspaper (Washington Post). Between that, free BBC content, and NPR, I think I get a reasonable overview of world and local news.

But, that does mean I miss breaking investigative news from other sources. At least until it's picked up elsewhere or made available elsewhere. It's a bummer at time, but paying for a large subset of possible news sources would cost 10x+ what I pay now.

Re: Vice files for Bankruptcy

#97

Post by PM_me_your_math »

soco wrote: post #78
detrites wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Minorities do not deserve carte blanche control of the output of mass communication. That's the most basic enabler of authoritarian dictatorship. Under democratic capitalism, power must cater to the majority, or lose it/go broke. It's not a perfect system, and remains susceptible to corruption from extremism, but it's historically superior to anything else that's been tried. Presumably this is a reality you've si…

Sorry for nitpicking, but you said "The 'woke' crowd have generally promoted censorship ('cancelling')" - but from what I can tell it's not the woke crowd banning books from schools and libraries, banning certain words from education, banning health measures, and I could go on. You talk about wokes promoting things, yet ignore the others actually _implementing_ bans as we speak? Is this gaslighting or what...

[flagged]

Re: Vice files for Bankruptcy

#98

Post by alistairSH »

nequo wrote: post #95
groestl wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to pay for news. I just don't want to pay for every news platform there is on this world, searately, because some manager somewhere decides that this will push the brand (same applies for movies, songs, etc) (not to go against your argument, I'm just elaborating on it)

That’s how we used to pay for newspapers though. Cable companies use bundling instead and you get a lot of crap that you don’t need but they price discriminate you into.

Sure, but how many people subscribed to >2 papers?

Growing up, the family had the Washington Post and Economist, plus the nightly news on one of the major broadcast stations. Some people might also get the WSJ. I can't think of anybody I knew who got more than that.

Re: Vice files for Bankruptcy

#99

Post by jasmer »

chmod775 wrote: post #31

Some years ago they had a large audience, me included, who got great value out of their investigative journalism. At some point they started pivoting into some weird form of advocacy journalism and clickbait garbage, alienating their existing audience, and apparently failing to find a new one. Good riddance.

It was not quite journalism because they didn’t really adhere to standards though they did dig into issues msm is too lazy or narrow to cover and so I think they had a legit voice.

Re: Vice files for Bankruptcy

#100

Post by user_named »

smcl wrote: post #27
sorokod wrote: post #17

Some of their reports were remarkable, for example "The Cannibal Warlords of Liberia" [1] - that takes courage. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRuSS0iiFyo

Oh man this is from the really early days. It's where most of us learned of the bizarrely named Liberian fighter "General Butt Naked" for the first time.

No it's not. Vice had already been around for 15 years at that point.
Post reply on HN