Vice: An Organisation Shaped By The Worlds History

In Montreal, 1994, three young journalists started a magazine to appeal to people like themselves. Their idea of people like themselves was a youth generation who wanted an alternate style of news highlighting issues that may be important to a more detached portion of society. Twenty years later Vice magazine has a circulation of 90,000. Aside from the monthly magazine publication, Vice have over 5 million subscribers on YouTube, a record label, a yearly series on HBO and a recently launched global news channel.  But what happened over twenty years for Vice to get to this point and how has the events of this period shaped how the company evolved?

Vice Magazine - Issue 1

The magazine initially was launched as the Voice of Montreal. They received government funding to cover trends and cultures which were at the time not being covered in print. The magazine changed their name to Vice in 1996 and shortly after moved base to Brooklyn, New York. 

The magazine's edgy content made noises in the Journalism world, and many from the alternative scene lent their hands to Vice to write articles they may not have ever been able to, or to portray art in styles previously ever imagined. Terry Richardson, a notable fashion photographer was one of the first huge names to produce content for Vice, with it being received fantastically by the readership.

Over the next ten years Vice expanded into every continent making sure there was a voice for the alternative view all over the world. Spike Jonze, a friend of Vice and an academy award winning director gave Vice the idea of producing digital content for online and home entertainment purposes. Vice set up vbs.tv producing short documentaries about similar issues raised in the magazine but on a more global scale. This was all during the heart of the Iraq & Afghanistan wars. Vice produced alternate content compared to news organisations around the U.S. for online use at the viewers pleasure. This ultimately led to Vice's rise to the top in terms of Alternate media.

Vice's ground coverage of the Iraq war

Vice's popularity kept growing over the years after, allowing the company to grow into a multinational and multiplatform company. Vice now tries to cater to all forms of opinion and tastes which creates a fantastic environment for good informative news. Vice operate their own country websites and YouTube channels, but have also got sister productions such at Motherboard and Noisy. Noisy concentrates on alternative music, whilst Motherboard explores the worlds ever changing nature and the environment that it will create for us to live in. Vice's willingness to evolve and eagerness to embrace what lies ahead is what has made the company such a success. The company is set to surpass a revenue of $1 billion in 2016 according to CEO Shane Smith. 

Vice is at the peak of it's powers right now and the future looks nothing but big things for the company. Vice continue to produce quality news whether it be breaking or otherwise on a daily basis to the world, whether it be in the form of an hour long look into the real North Korea or exploring the harsh realities of Texas' drought. Vice is being shaped by the world we live in, something which a lot of media companies have struggled with in the internet age. Twenty years ago in Montreal, no one would have imagined this.

The Sociological Factors Affecting Your News

Modern day published news is often considered the result of tailored factors that affect the process of writing news stories. These environmental factors are in effect because media organisations operate within society’s regulated rules. This means that the rules of society, whether they are codified or not, have direct influence on the way in which the news is written and displayed [1].

Impacting on today’s news production are the political, economical, social and technological factors. Essentially, these factors constitute what news organisations consider during the process of news making- between the actual event and the final published story. The influence these factors can have is evident within the published media of many news organisations. Focusing on the political factor as an example, then enables an analysis of the sociological approach to journalism.

The nature of a political system often dictates the function of the news media in society, meaning in a liberal environment the role of the media would be to act as a watchdog [2]. A prime example of the political system causing the media to act in this way is apparent in the ‘Watergate Scandal’ of 1972 in the USA, in which two journalists acting in the interest of the public revealed the illegal behaviour of a President and his re-election committee.

In contrast, an authoritarian government would not allow many harsh or harmful depictions to be published against them. An example of this is the recent Chinese riots, of which very few journalists reported, due to the restrictions and regulations of the government. Videos and social media comments were posted on various platforms, only to be shortly prohibited by the Chinese government/regulatory body.

The political culture of society is also said to play a part in the news orientation. It’s a belief that the social norms and shaping of regions can create a culture that influences the focus of the media. For instance, one of the largest target audiences for newspapers in the UK would be the working-class, who are predominantly associated with Labour party votes. Therefore some newspapers, such as the ‘Daily Mirror’ feel obliged or influenced to support the views of their target audience with similar stories.

Labour Party-Lower Class Vote Link

Political pressure is one of the final factors within political systems that McNair draws up upon. The most radical form of political pressure can be presented in the form of informal lobbying, which has essentially corrupted many politicians in the eyes of the public. Lobbying is the notion that a government official can be influenced by other forces/individuals, discarding the obligation they have to the public. This kind of behaviour has led to close relationships between massive media corporations and politicians. Most notably the Thatcher-Murdoch liaison, seemed to be the most effective, as Rupert Murdoch (who owned the most influential newspapers in the country) secured Margaret Thatcher three general election wins in UK parliament.

Other political pressures present themselves in the form of legislation, physical disruption and censorship.

Overall, political systems have a huge effect on the final work of published news organisations. The sub-factors previously mentioned within this news effecting concept are prime examples of "media ecology"[4]. These elements fit with Harrison’s description, that the sociology of journalism is the “ecology of news”.

Do We Need A Free Press? Is the answer just yes/no or is there something more to it?

A free press is vital, for the maintenance of a liberal democracy. It provides citizens, with the information and variety of opinion necessary for them to debate political issues openly and make their government accountable. Whereas, restrictions on media often indicate us about the government assaulting other democratic institutions.

 

According to Freedom house’s freedom of the press index, only 14% of the world’s citizens live in countries that enjoy a free press. In the rest of the world, governments as well as non-state actors control the viewpoints that reach citizens and brutally repress independent voices, who aim to promote accountability, good governance and economic development.

For instance, if we look at India, the freedom of the press is in danger because of the ownership of the newspaper industry and the predominance of some newspaper groups and chains. It is also suggested that the editors and journalists cannot have adequate freedom of collecting, disseminating and offering comments as they are under the pressure of the capitalist owners. This process of collecting and disseminating facts is not possible in the case of the newspapers, which depend to a large extent on revenge from advertisements (as the advertising interests cannot but influence the presentation of news and comments). Unless, this whole structure of ownership and control in the newspaper industry of press is changed, it is therefore suggested that the press cannot be really free.

I think , free press is necessary but till it remains in it's ethical boundaries!

Ian Hughes, truly said "The media are accused and blamed or praised and hailed, sometimes in almost the same breath, for their influence on the outcome of the democratic process. However, experience shows that when media becomes a mouthpiece for one particular political party or any personality related stories, they tend to be poorly researched or not factual. Opinion can be twisted to suit political-party paymasters: then their force for good distorts rather than reports, hides rather than reveals. Editors can and should have personal and professional opinions but factual reporting and political opinions must be clearly distinct."

Well, not only politically but media does misuse their freedom in general. In the past their have some cases like the phone hacking scandal and bribery of the police, in which its shown how a journalist has exploited his power by hacking 4,000 people’s phones. These are people from the parliament, royal families and teenage victims from the 9/11 case. Not only this, but the police was also bribed for 100,000 pounds for hacking and spying scandal.

In these circumstances journalists individually and collectively should shoulder the responsibility of maintaining the reputation of their profession. Journalists should often ask these questions to themselves- Are we fair? Are we thoughtful?

A fourth to be reckoned with? The role of the media in today's society

Back in 1787, philosopher Edmund Burke coined the term ‘The Fourth Estate’, which he used to describe the role the media ought to play in society. According to him, the press should perform a regulatory role by keeping the other three powers (parliament, the state and the judiciary) in line, and prevent them from becoming too dominant. It was also deemed that fluency was needed between them and the public, to aid understanding and co-operation. Almost a quarter of a millennium later, with the media and society having undergone radical changes, do the foundations of this estate still stand strong?

One of the primary roles of the media is to keep the public in touch with those above them - namely the politicians who govern their everyday lives. It is evident that, in order to combat the "growing sense of political disillusionment, apathy and disconnection"[1] that is manifesting itself among today's youth, more transparency is needed at the very top. In 2010, a series of debates were televised in the run-up to the general election. The three leaders - Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg - appeared in front of the general public to tell them how their party intended to deal with various issues, such as the economic crisis and immigration. These debates were a huge success, with the the views peaking at 9.9 million, or 37% of the total TV viewership at the time [2]

This table[3], which charts amount of television watched by various age groups at the time, shows that those in the 12-17 bracket watched more television than any other group bar those who were 50+. As a result, these figures suggest that a large part of the debates' audience was young. This perhaps points to a growing interest in politics, with the media to thank for the publicity these showdowns received in the build-up to their broadcast.

In addition to keeping the people informed on the powers, the media's ability to entertain, educate and inform is unparalleled. Now, more than ever, we are reliant on the media in order to learn and thrive - with the development of the internet, it has become an integral part of our daily lives. The media is a force to be reckoned with and, as such, it must be handled with care and responsibility. IPSO, a regulatory organisation established in the wake of the phone hacking scandal, aims to do this - with the Guardian and Independent refusing to sign up, though, it remains to be seen how effective it will be.

The journalist Anand Shukla remarked that "a democracy without media is like a vehicle without wheels"[4]. Indeed, a strong and independent media is pivotal to the functioning of day-to-day life. Without it, we would be left in the dark, with the powers that be free to run amok and renege on any and all promises as they see fit. The role of the media in today's society must not be underestimated, for it will surely shape the society of tomorrow.

______________________________________________________________________________


[1] Ashgate - A Disconnected Generation?https://www.ashgate.com/pdf/SamplePages/Young_Citizens_Intro.pdf
[2] Guardian, 2010 TV debate viewing figures
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/apr/16/leaders-debate-tv-ratings
[3]Marketing Charts, TV viewership data 
http://www.marketingcharts.com/television/more-viewers-watch-timeshifted-tv-15093/
[4]International Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences, Anand Narain Shukla
http://www.academia.edu/4243668/MEDIA_AND_SOCIAL_AWARENESS