2 HN users recommended this interview2 months2015–2024score 2.5
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026
Brought up whenever Vice is discussed, as a memorable scene of Carr pressing its founders.
A clip from the documentary Page One in which New York Times reporter David Carr interviews and confronts the founders of Vice magazine over their media deal. It captures tension between old and new media in 2010.
One of the best scenes from Page One: [this video] Carr talks to the Vice guys about their deal with CNN: "Just because you put on a fucking safari helmet and looked at some poop, doesn't give you the right to insult what we do."
Carr confronts Vice founders over their CNN deal in the film Page One.
There's an interesting confrontation over that piece in the NY Times 'Page Six' documentary, which filmed David Carr, the Times's then media correspondent, interviewing the Vice Founders: [this video] I think part of the Vice pitch was always that it was a disruptor of the old-fashioned media narratives, uncovering the stories to which boring old media was blind. I tend to agree with Carr's implicit critique here that we undervalue the journalistic, societal value of the sort of unglamorous coverage in which traditional media invests and at which it excels.
Carr interviews Vice founders, illustrating the value of traditional media coverage.
Why should the Gawker network do "actual journalism" if that need's already met by major outlets? Granted, there are listicle happy properties (Lifehacker), but Gawker et al. filled a void with it's meta-criticism of news. It's not rare for Gawker to cover topics that are too risky for major outlets. Take for example the sports property, deadspin. I read deadspin and the deadspin writers broach newsworthy topics that would get an ESPN writer not only "banned from the clubhouse" but suspended by HQ in order to appease the team/league. Deadspin provides signal that major outlets would otherwise avoid or over-cook. Not to over-shill for Gawker, but the commenters are pretty educated and won't let the authors off the hook if the author leaves holes in their argument. I submit that your poop should flow further down the news hill to sites like Vice.com where NYT super-journos call them out for looking at poop[1]. [1] [this video]
Carr calls out Vice for looking at poop; cited in defense of Gawker.
Your observation reminds me of a fun 2010 interaction between Vice and NYT illustrating some tension then between the two outlets that is featured in the documentary Page One: Inside the New York Times . (David Carr and Shane Smith would later laugh together about the exchange during a panel at Vanity Fair's New Establishment Summit in 2014.) Excerpt: [this video] Full: [link]
Excerpt from Page One showing 2010 tension between Vice and NYT.
The current top story on vice.com, “Inside the Christian Nationalist Church Where Proud Boys Go to be Baptized,” is a bit thick. “Meaner, faster, and more dynamic.” Ha! David Carr had their number off the bat: [this video]
Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.
Plays via YouTube's privacy-enhanced embed
6 Hacker News comments
From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.
Citations, criticism and jokes
Read more