So I see a new Chappelle special on my Netflix, and of course, behind
Succession and the
Righteous Gemstones (very funny, despite McBride basically rehashing Kenny Powers as a preacher), I set it as my next Must Watch.
Like much of humanity, if it's Chappelle, it's required viewing.
Anyway, viewing this must've triggered the algorithm in my news feed to offer me this article from Vice:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/5...cks-and-stones
So I scan it and it's got a few links in it, and at the bottom, where it ostensibly makes a point, there's this paragraph:
Chappelle has always been a daredevil comedian willing to take a controversial stance or downplay a serious controversy for laughs, including his early-2000s skits about R. Kelly's court trials on Chappelle's Show. But now he chooses to blatantly ignore the historic criticism against his style of comedy and new loud-and-clear criticism from the trans community. His approach comes off like a defiant rejection of change at any cost. As he keeps going down this path, drawing attention to the worst aspects of his important career, the biggest cost will be tarnishing his own legacy.
I asked myself, "What's this 'historic criticism' of Chappelle?" It turns out, it's
Vice criticizing Chappelle back in 2017.
Vice has cited itself as the source of historical criticism Chappelle has ignored. At first, I wondered if this was possible, if this wasn't a violation of some cardinal rule of responsible journalism. Then I considered,
this is Vice. I understand this company is in poor financial condition, and they pump out articles at a rate of ten an hour, but can they really not afford to have found a source other than themselves?
The
Times can do this sort of thing. So can the
Journal, or
Boston Globe, or
LA Times. But
Vice? This is kind of like one of us citing an old post taking another of us to task in the past. So what?
I've read that newspaper subscriptions have increased in response to Trump's criticism of the media. In this battle where reputable sources fight for credibility, it'd be nice to see a bright line drawn between the real and the McJournalism of
Vice. I like clickbait as much as the next guy, but when it starts referring to itself as a reputable source of record, we're testing Rock Bottom.
