I think the problem a lot of us have with Vice boils down to the people that represent the reporting, most visible on the HBO show or online videos but in much of the writing too (since the writers’ personalities come through so strongly). They are snotty, obnoxious NYC hipsters - doing legit, often important journalism, covering stories that few others are right now, but their motivation for doing it seems more about how they are perceived (trying to be cool and edgy) than the actual story (and living their fantasy of being Hunter S. Thompson).
It can certainly be an amusing juxtaposition to see a skinny little white nerd interviewing Somalian warlords, and in normal circumstances that kind of juxtaposition can objectively help the interview by making the subject more at ease, but with Vice it feels too deliberate - the reporters basically insert themselves into the story, beyond what’s appropriate, for the sake of making it edgy.
Certainly, many reporters have had big egos and inserted themselves into stories in the past, but the way the Vice people do it is different - because they’re trying to be cool. It feels inauthentic and manipulative (and it works on a lot of people my age).
That said, despite the alt-right founder, as discussed in this thread, I do believe the people there are genuinely leftists/progressives, and the slant they take in the general news coverage is not wrong or bad in some way. I think few would read it if not for the trying-to-be-gonzo stuff also being there, since other outlets do general progressive news coverage and investigative reporting far better.
