They put waaaay too much effort into being edgy. I'm not going to use the "H word" because it's thrown around entirely too often and has effectively lost all meaning. A simple and straightforward example of what I'm talking about: do we need to know you're at your cool Brooklyn headquarters at the beginning of every segment?

I know that things in this world aren't what they seem, especially when it comes to popular culture, mainstream journalism, globalization, international politics, etc. But Vice doesn't give us any nuance or alternative views in the presentation of their stories - there's one truth, one interpretation, one "right" side. I'm not saying that every point of view should be presented regarding every discussion, because it's often the case that the "other side" to a debate is unadulterated bullshit. To a lesser extent, I think John Oliver has the same problem - but at least his variety of long-form journalism lends itself to giving the audience a little more context for his arguments.

Do they want to be the website that has gay dudes review pocket pussies, or do they want to interview Obama & Sergey Lavrov? Should entertainment & serious journalism be mutually exclusive? Maybe not, but the author of this article hits the nail on the head: ". . .a more common way Vice entertains is by making correspondents the stars of their segments, which makes them relatable, but can also be self-aggrandizing." I don't mind your journalists using obscenities, I don't mind tattoos, I don't mind journalists being themselves (i.e., young people living alternative lifestyles). I DO mind when Vice "trying too hard" gets in the way of responsible coverage of important stories that other outlets simply aren't pursuing.