A reader quotes Marah Eakin:

Serious journalists had been in Pakistan, Angola, and North Korea for years, so what made Vice think that because it sent some tattooed kids wearing jeans to a war torn area that it was reporting serious news and not just promoting “what the fuck” tourism. With [“Vice”], that question looms large and is never really answered.

True, but how much has the average or even above average person seen of that “serious” coverage.  It’s certainly not being shown on any of mainstream TV channels.  So unless you are somebody who’s really actively seeking out more on what’s going in all those places, you probably don’t know about it. People don’t always want to be informed, but they always want to be entertained.  So if you can find a way to make information interesting and entertaining, then it’s easier to inform them.  Vice may have a lot more style to it than a nominally serious journalist, but that’s what allows it to get through to people.

Another agrees:

Vice is accessible to a younger generation. When I was a younger man, long before Vice was on HBO, I stumbled onto the Vice website. I found their style of journalism fascinating. It wasn’t some Ivy League grad repeating the same form of journalism I had been watching my whole life. Vice was fresh and what felt to be fearless. I often found the humor of the reporting (staying in the North Korean hotel? hilarious) to be in stark contrast with mainstream reporting.

As for the terror and explosions, those things are real and have been widely ignored by modern media outlets. The Vice report in Kabul was a stark reminder of the hopeless year I spent there working with the Afghan government while dodging rockets and explosions.  Those are real things and they happen to real people. I guess what I’m trying to say was I love the reporting and I may not have been as curious about these places without them.