Johnny Harris: Faulty YouTube Journalism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ก.ย. 2024
- Sources: sites.google.c...
Conflict of interest: There is no conflict of interest to mention.
Articles - sites.google.c...
Community - / discord
Newsletter - dannyhatcher.s...
Ways to Support:
- My Patreon: / dannyhatcher
- My Academy: dannyhatcher.c...
Where to find me:
- Twitter (X): / dannyhatcher
- Contact me: dannyhatcher.c...
How I make my videos:
- Behind the scenes: / dannyhatcher
About:
Exploring learning and theories of education.
I am an independent researcher currently based in the UK, sharing interesting trends and stories domestically and from around the globe.
Blending rigorous research with animation to create content that explains complex issues in relatable ways. I hold a BSc in Sports Coaching and an MSc in Strength and Conditioning from Brighton University.
Whether you are a teacher, student, parent, or interested learner, there is always another perspective that I think is worth exploring. If that sounds interesting, subscribe and follow along.
Disclaimer:
Content has bias, and information can be interpreted in various ways.
Don't take these videos as fact.
Systems, ideas, and science changes over time.
Thank you for watching. Comments are welcomed and encouraged - what do you think?
I heart comments I have seen, and reply to those TH-cam notifies me off.
Due to popular request, I will be doing a follow-up video going into more depth, adding greater context in the new year.
FEEDBACK:
The videos' intention: Highlight areas for improvement to TH-cam Educators, EG: Sources, Corrections, Retractions, Conflict of interest.
Where I fall short: Lacking additional context and depth for quotes. My poor assumption of others experience with the topic.
3:41 media not meida
17:38 whether not weather
4:58 proliferation not poliferation
KEY COMMENTS:
- Regulation integrity network. Should/how would it be done online to manage misinformation? @eucabrooks
- Suggestion of mainstream media having misinformation sorted was inaccurate. They do better at holding standards but still have room for improvement. @red-vg2ds
- We should focus on media literacy. @asphaltphigrim
- 3 strike copyright warning maybe 3 strike misinformation warning @xavibryans834
- 'Infotainment' content @sarakajira
whether vs weather... 17:39
platiagirzed...
14:42 plagiarized not platiagirzed (adding timestamp for your convenience)
Other than these occasional typos I'm really impressed with the video, especially the fact that you're using Johnny Harris as an example of a wider problem with journalistic~educational content on YT rather than treating it as an isolated problem with JH specifically.
😊😊@@fsbayer
Two more typos:
11:40 "innaccurate" should be "inaccurate".
14:44 “platiagirized” should be “plagiarized”
Making engaging videos and conducting accurate research are two different things and the algorithm supports engagement over truth 99% of the time.
This completely overlooks any art medium like film or episodic series and gives slack to someone who doesn't deserve it. It is undeniably easier to entertain with inaccurate information, and consequently, it garners more engagement. However, without interlacing proper information and rhetoric with entertainment, ground is ultimately ceded to false narratives.
@@atoagej views pay the bills, not the truth
100%
Engagement is truth 1% of the time. Which is 100%
Ever since the Illuminaughti fiasco happened, it made me think about a political compass test question that asks if you think "There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment".
When I was like 16 I didn't get it, how is more readily information a bad thing? Now I can see how much of a fool I was years later.
Interesting! Do you view the widespread accessibility of information (and our ability to respond to it) as that fusion of entertainment and information? Is it possible that accessibility wouldn’t fall to the demands of entertaining certain audiences?
@@annieothername I feel like news will always be made to entertain people. News and journalism is not a scientific practise, if you publish a scientific article with obvious bias or deliberate misinformation you’d be shunned from the community, in journalism this is kinda the hallmark. Until news is completely de-sensationalised and made akin to a scientific paper then we’ll hardly have accurate news sources. This kinda seems impossible right now, news is much too important as a factor of control for governments and powerful people to encourage this sort of journalistic style
Media literacy folks
Thank you for this comment. Damn.
John Oliver and the other television “late night” shows come to mind.
Something important that gets lost in a lot of these discussions is that actual journalists piece together what's happening in the world by going out into the community, interviewing experts, participants and witnesses, poring over documents, piecing together narratives from disparate sources using their wits, experience and intuition. Most creators that do "journalism" on TH-cam simply swipe others' journalistic work wholesale and add their commentary on top of it. So, in that sense, the actual journalists are the hosts and the creators are the parasites. If the actual journalists were to disappear, the creators would have nothing left to talk about.
Agreed. This is where 'presenters' 'reporters' might be more appropriate but then again labels are tricky...
@@Danny.Hatcher And I certainly don't mean to denigrate TH-camrs who do in fact perform actual journalism. It's not a categorical thing; it's more about a lack of standards.
@@tommylakindasorta3068 But there are a lot of cases of news articles in which many news outlets just reproduce what a few news agencies gathered. And they mix it with other news where they send people on site or do iven some investigative research on site. Ultimately it's a matter of time restrictions and ressources. Also Harris does travel for on-site research at times...
like cofeezilla, who mostly cover internet scams, he always contact the people he is investigating and uses their answers in the video@@tommylakindasorta3068
While I agree, I don't think there is something wrong with piecing a lot of journalistic information together into something that didn't exist yet.
But man, the way johnny Harris presents things is so sleazy and disgusting.
The irony behind Johnny Harris is that he became the very thing that he was criticising
A content creator?
And criticizing and criticizing....
Interesting you say that. I've discovered his channel only today. Without knowing any context I'm pretty sure what he was against and is now is himself is: biased-reporting or even "propaganda" leaning. Meaning a strong emphasis on a certain narrative and/or on his own opinion. That at least sums up my impression. I feel like if I want something like that I could just open our typical newspapers here in the west. It's the usual rubbish like that which brought me here to search for an objective and neutral channel. Search continues.
Old-school newspaper editor here. Interesting video, but can I give you a piece of advice: Check your grammar of any on-screen text in the future. This one is full of typos, which hurts your own creditability in my mind. If a creator can't use "weather" and "whether" properly, viewers might question what other details that creator couldn't be bothered to get straight.
What you are addressing is a Literacy issue. here...
Exactly…..!
Ironic given your inability to spell credibility.
Another question is: can 'creditability', or indeed 'credibility' be said to be 'hurt'?@@allenbulick5853
He's right but it is funny that he did the same thing. I'd be willing to let it slide if it was just once or twice, but there were several typos.
People will assume that high production quality means high factual accuracy, and that simply isn't true. Thus there needs to be a burden placed on internet personalities to ensure that the slick editing isn't hiding misinformation.
There's almost an inverse correlation. People who spend their time doing research and journalistic inquiry often don't have the time or disposable income for a high production value with slick editing.
100% agreed. This even applies to things like tech reviews... people think the high production value and editing means the actual content is good and trustworthy
@@AbandonedVoidthough it depends as most big TH-camrs have a big team that does everything including research and video editing. They get paid enough that they can hire others to do the grunt work. But they film it to look like it's just one person doing it all.
I'm so glad other people are working out how obnoxious he is. It's like his videos are written by a 14 year old who just read a Wiki article on missiles or radar, and now think they know top secret information no one else has ever heard. It's such a surface level understanding with no real grasp of the topic but packaged with good editing to make it seem professional. He's the American education system, personified.
He made a video on dingoes and claimed colonialism in Australia had decimated their numbers, causing severe environmental damage, but didn't even know that dingoes themselves are an introduced species brought to Australia by visiting ships from Asia a few hundred years ago and their introduction caused a huge number of species to become extinct on the Australian mainland (such as Tasmanian tigers).
This is all true, except the date of dogs arrival in Australia is a few thousands ybp, not hundreds.
Your comment is completely incorrect. Dingoes were introduced so many thousands of years ago that by the time of European colonisation, they were already fully integrated into the Australian ecosystem. For all practical intents and purposes they are now “Australian animals”.
And how America "gave" us submarines lol
@@sadmermaid I mean America *did* invent the first operational and first successful combat submarines (Turtle c.1779 and C.S.S. Hunley c. 1863 respectively). Not sure which nation designed the first mass-deployed of submersible as a regular naval vessel, but the United States most definitely invented the submarine.
@@userequaltoNull oh for sure, not disputing that, I just meant it was mentioned some video about china, of course lol, and recently we are spending billions here in Australia to build nuclear subs, but Johnny's video made it seem like we were just *gifted* them.
Man, I used to love the guy so much. Until one day he made a piece on a topic I'm knowledgeable of... and I realize what he was really doing.
It wasn't just his "view on the facts" - it was the actual facts... and no, these were not "mistakes"
It broke my heart knowing so many (as did I in the past) would never know, and just take his word as is.
I un-subscribed and decided not to watch any of his videos again. I could never trust what he's saying is real or just an agenda he's pushing.
His videos on China are completely in line with US government and Western MSM false narratives including atrocity propaganda and just outright lies.
May I ask what topic it was?
gell man amnesia
I don’t get what you’re saying, you say you didn’t like he put the facts instead of his opinion?
@@germ-x6855 Don't expect a response, he's a bot.
Perhaps TH-cam would benefit from an integrity network? A voluntary network that TH-camrs could join, with the requirements being that they provide citations in an approved style. The network wouldn't necessarily have to fact-check the sources of every video, but simply ensuring that the citing is occurring would allow people to know that they're getting information from at least a potentially reliable source. Any account that doesn't want to provide citations simply doesn't join the group and then viewers decide whether they want to ignore that content.
I like the idea and one I have thought about but am not sure how it would work in practice.
PS. Added to pinned comment.
There is already similar thing on TH-cam. If you ever watched any affiliated news or persons with the government, like DeutscheWelle or that one doctor from UK, you will see the box about the sponsorship of this content, a.k.a. government of .
you give folks on the internet a bit of power and they end up going on an ego trip.
@@Slawa_Saporogezwhy don't they do this when think tanks and political organizations like world economic forum fund a video? Like for johnny
@@ramoraidOh really?
Johnny unfortunately falls victim to a lot of other 'educational' channels that get too hyperbolic.
Victim maybe - certainly critiqued I think due to the points I raise. Quality of research being at the core.
Same issue that Vox has. It's almost like he was taught how to entertain, not report.
This is probably one of my favorite videos on the subject. You use good sources (and show them on screen which makes it even better), and you apply what you've said to describe the debacle between journalism and educational content, clickbaity and truly informative videos, aswell as the ambiguity we see these days from content creators that don't really know where to position themselves when it comes to making videos that are supposed to educate. In Johnny Harris' case, he really needs to do something about his videos not living up to the expectations like Money & Marco said, but also to not let himself and his content be controlled by outside influence or desire for personal gain (like in that China video where he ends up talking about stakeholder capitalism).
You, my friend, are not ambiguous at all : your videos do not get the views that they deserve but atleast you really make a good job of informing us!
I personally learnt a lot and being someone that has an interest in the medias and the world of information, I will definitely be extracting some lessons from this video for the day a project of mine could use an educated perspective like this one.
Can't wait to see what you make next!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
I really do appreciate every word! If you have any topics or ideas in mind let me know 😁
Johnny Harris is not a journalist and neither is he a reporter. You only have to look at his videos to see how random the topics are. From shampoo, to North Korean cinema: none of what he produces is new. Journalists report the news, not some random topics plucked out of this air. Harris is great at producing engaging videos and narratives, but that's where it ends.
I’m a history teacher and I use some of his videos in my classroom but I have a policy of screening and fact checking every video I show to make sure it’s accurate. His video on Puerto Rico was decent.
@mckevin289 just don't use his videos because it serves as an endorsement to your students that if they consume his other videos that it will be fact checked as well when it clearly isn't and many of his videos are problematic
Disagree with other commenter here, obviously if it’s a problem you can just tell your students to make sure they’re fact checking because not everything this guy says is necessarily legitimate but good info is good info
The PR vid was kinda misleading. And yeah by watching his videos you kinda continue the trend as you validate his content.
@@nicholast2031I disagree with your view. By sharing his video with the class you unintentionally create an air of trust. As a person whos in a position of trust already it requires a higher degree of scrutiny upon the content provided.
@@nicholast2031I don't think he is telling his students that this guy only has one decent video.
I've watched a bunch of Johnny Harris videos, I couldn't tell you ONE thing I've learnt from it. Similarly I also watch people like Mr. Beat, far worse editing, no music, dry delivery, yet somehow I retain everything and his videos keep me way more engaged. It's all substance
Honestly, that’s more of a reflection on you. A curious and inquisitive person will always learn something new from a piece of media that they’re never encountered before.
I’m not a fan of Johnny (to put it lightly lol) but he does a wide variety of videos on various international topics and so, even as a person with a degree in Politics and History, I’ve learned about specific world events or “oddities” that I didn’t know about. y’know… because I don’t know everything lol
@@DDoubleEDouble Yeah I don't think that's fair either, maybe was just hyperbole, but Johnny Harris definitely has a very evident bias, and favors engagement over information. But his videos, by that very nature, are often on pretty niche, and lesser known topics... If nothing else, they'll make you aware of something you can explore on your own somewhere else.
@@DDoubleEDouble Nah you're just coping and are a malding Johnny Harris fan. I'mma watch quality content while you can continue watching basically the adult version of cocomelon.
What a dumb and pretentious take and I'm glad others are calling out your BS. If you have one good fact in a 15 minute long video that doesn't mean your content is good and an "inquisitive" person can learn something from it. You can be a curious and inquisitive person and also value your time and quality of information.
"The adult version of cocomelon" this actually made me laugh and it's scary how accurate this is.
I loved Harris when he was at Vox. Vox has been and remains a great journalistic media outlet. His Borders series was fantastic, so much so I was pretty devastated to hear that it was canceled. However, going independent, I got the gut feeling from his videos that they presented many misrepresentations, and stopped watching. As Tom Nicholas demonstrated two years ago, his work wasn't great. I've not returned to watching Harris because his credibility in my eyes has been irreparably tarnished.
I was the exact same. I didn't watch his previous stuff, and I was more naive than I am now. His videos just appeared on my recommended feed. They had style and were pretty on top of what I was interested in at the time. I had a very slight intuition that something was off. Not enough to believe, though. Then Tom Nichols was recommended to me. I have been trying to get multiple sources. And it all clicked.
I mean, he was promoting Joe rogan, Harris was. And even though I was still bummed out in Joe's gradual evedent slide. I was like "...why tf is this guy I've never heard of (Harris) promoting Joe rogan?! Anyone who wasn't intentionally ignorant, had an issue with his course, and had been listening to him for more than a year knows about his slide to further right"
Thanks, ES and Tom, for being real educators.
Why do I care about Joe's slide? Eventually, I experienced that gradually slow saying where you start hanging out with a friend who says Fringe hateful things occasionally, then they push your other friends away, and before you know it you're sitting in a bar with a bunch of extremist reactionaries. And I don't want to be that fool who finds himself surrounded by nazis with no other friends because I didn't make my own choices and followed a "troll". I.e. let myself be manipulated.
Vox is one of the most slanted media outlets that exists, and they have no problem lying to everyone while they push their agenda.
he had a leftie borders are bad slant which was gross.
Vox seems to really be falling off ever since Ezra Klein left for New York Times. I still absorb some of their work but I've noticed they've drifted more and more into their own bubble of opinions and worldviews. That's fine as a media institution, but far away from their original goals of being a journalism institution.
I think his tenure at the late 2010s Vox influenced his beliefs after leaving the news outlet. I hope he does research on himself before rehashing their statements that are dubious to many people.
The best criticism and love note to journalism is Terry Pratchett's, "The Truth" where it discusses the nature of Truth and accountability in journalism. "Does the Truth come and smack you in the face when you get something wrong? I'm impressed. Most people are accountable to other people. While you, you are accountable to the truth. Amazing!"
Truth is a loaded term in philosophy and one I am sure there many books on 😁
@@Danny.Hatcher Terry Pratchett does talk about that too. There's dialogue where characters discuss how manipulating how you say things can turn the truth into something like a lie. And how people don't really want to hear "new's" but "olds". They want to know that yesterday was pretty much like today. I want to hear that "a dog bites a man" they don't want to hear that a "man bites a dog". New things upset people.
@@Uesurii_San That's interesting because novelty is a consideration in news coverage. It is a problem in, for example, science, when something contrarian or unique makes the headlines for the clicks. Even if that study has not been verified widely or replicated. I will look for the Pratchett piece, thanks for sharing
Unfun fact: Johnny's on Nebula. He's not hurting for cash. HeIS the most annoying version of this, I've stopped watching him. He just makes things up sometimes.
Nice content, have one subscribe.
it took me so long to realize this, I think it was the more political videos where I eventually noticed "damn this is so dumbed down it sounds like a PragerU video by a neolib", I felt a bit like a toddler after the inflation one in particular
Yeah I like Nebula but was disappointed to see him on there
Whenever I can hear someone sneering through their voice while making an argument, I usually turn off what's playing in about 60 seconds.
I'm so glad that someone is calling out this guy's blatant hypocrisy in video form. I've left comments in the past bringing up his early statement of intent video and pointing out how far out of touch the reality of his channel is but I really wanted to do a full on take-down hbomberguy style because of how much it pissed me off. I don't have an audience and I doubt I'd have the necessary skills to have produced one so I didn't... but yeah... thanks for doing this!
17:44 your text says 'weather' while your audio says 'whether'. ;)
Here's an idea; make an outline and attempt writing a script; if you get into it, like actually feverishly writing - then you've got something worth making into a video essay. Interject the script appropriately with the clips you intend to criticize and it'll start to come together. I watch no-sub creators all the time... even if you only ever make a good one-off that relieves you of your mental burden, the work was worth doing.
@@Mis73rRand0m 10 years ago I would have! Maybe I still will. I have another target in mind too!
I find it hilarious that those that raise their finger talking about "they want to scam your attention for monetary gains" but just have the same motivation with with same amount of manipulation. That is hypocrite.
I do think Johnny Harris has done some great videos that had great stories and visuals. But when it come to introcate and complex issues you can clearly see that he prioritizes over-simplification and story-telling over accurate information. I would also like to add soemthing about his video on the world cup in Qatar: he told the story like HE discovered a lot of new information and even sent on someone local to film areas thus endangering that individual. The truth is though that all the information in his videos have been covered wildly (and woth more detail and accuracy) by other media, without endangering someone.
💯
I do enjoy watching his stories. The true journalistic content he shares is great to see but, as you mention, depth can be lacking when education, or deeper potentially complex topics are covered.
Can’t wait until hbomderguy gets to this one
His plagiarism video is in my Other sources 😁
@@Danny.Hatcher "Sources" link comes back with a 404 error.
Hey, I'm totally new to your channel and liking your production style and content! However, just a small note on spellchecking - noticed (at least 3) typos that keep pulling my focus away from your actual argument e.g. 'meida', 'omittion' and 'innacurate'... Totally minor (and feeling lame for my part in flagging it!😅) - but if it disrupts communicating your message, it's worth paying attention to. All the best.
Not at all lame as they were also distracting to me 😅 was going to leave a comment but found yours, so am adding this to support the observation (including the positive one, :)
Up
it happens a dozen or more times. fixing all these typos and re-uploading would make the argument stronger. all the typos really stand out. if dyslexia is the problem, perhaps asking a friend review it first would be an option.
Yes, I was going to mention this as well. OP does well in addressing the complexities of adhering to rigorous standards of integrity, but the videos is full of superficial errors, which is extremely unfortunate.
Adding in a community notes feature like Twitters to TH-cam and adding a 3-strike misinformation warnings for continuous misinformation being spread based on how much misinformation is spread as the pinned comment says would allow for a lot more media integrity.
Idk about a 3 strike. Maybe a demonstration instead because that's what they really care about..$$$. Got em where it actually hurts. 3 strikes they can just keep making channels. Ssniperwolf is on .a new account after hers got banned. It's common for that to happen.
That would be too easily abused, especially when it comes to controversial topics. You simply couldn’t cover certain topics, regardless of your opinion on said topic.
even if johnny addresses the criticism he receives he will probably say something like "uhm i'm just 1 guy with my own perspective" even though he makes a shit ton of money off youtube and presents most of his videos and 99% factual information
his joe rogan video really confirmed for me he’s not a real journalist. It felt as though he wanted to be on the podcast. and didn’t take the time to read countless articles by media journalist outlining his involvement in the alt right pipeline, medical misinformation that causes real world consequences, and so much more.
Pretty much wholesale papered over all of the Joe Rogan kook platforming problem where he's clearly not the best person equipped to challenge any of the views he platforms. The whole "I think he's trying his best" angle of the video is just not good enough for someone who presents themself as a journalist to. Not holding Rogan accountable for any of the dangerous shit he lets fester in his audience's brainholes.
@@Technizor sjw pronoun libertard detected
I subscribed JUST from the detailed source list... I love finding gold mines like yours and cant wait to see this channel explode
I’ve felt as if there was something off with his content, but I couldn’t place my finger on it. Going down this rabbit hole really made sense, this is great and really helped me put!
Edit: put my mind on it
You gotta work on your spelling as nearly every bit you added had enormous errors
Normally wouldn't point out typos or the like, but "platiagirzed" @ 14:44 is just to excellent to ignore.
You may want to run your script through a spell-checker if you're going to put it all on screen ;)
ftr, this video is respectfully educational.
the way research oriented education and career works is to always study the concept prior to lecture, using the actual lecture as a reinforcement and/or revision, clearing up misconceptions etc.
none of my undergrad or grad courses, science or not, ever started lecture assuming you know nothing about it. there's a syllabus, curriculum, reading assignments.
higher education DEMANDS you being able to choose your information sources accurately.
as a biologist, "we don't know" is a valid scientific answer that's one of the most prevailing themes in biology. you will never be free of the unknown in biology.
but that kind of an unknown is clearly defined itself, therefore, you can relay on the definition that it isn't.
a lecturer should never leave their students with confusion and lack of resolution. even if the resolution is ambiguous, uneventful, inscrutable, inconclusive etc it needs to be clearly defined.
Harris isn't teaching. he's pandering.
My first exposure to Harris' BS was his propaganda about guns in the US vs. Switzerland. It was my last exposure to Harris' BS.
I have used that in my current video script as an example...
One other sort of odd particular about educational content on social media: it’s often difficult to impossible to locate a specific video again unless you bookmark or saved it at the time. This contributes to inaccurate ear worms being planted while somebody is scrolling their feed without any context or ability to go back and check on the source later.
He will always been the "Angry Breakfast Guy" to me no matter what lol
Johny Harris presents "news" as entertainment. The same way James Cameron presented the Titanic to a modern audience. There are some facts and opinions that relate to the subject matter but they're designed more for viewer engagement than straight-up facts, which let's be honest can be boring in most cases. Hence, the entertainment clickbait style of youtube / social media "journalists ".
Neil Postman wrote about this "infotainment" in The End of Education.
In the United States we have multiple 24 hour “news” stations. He’s speaking from an American perspective.
When he says “presentation” he just means that the videos he makes should be attractive, be polished.
The critics that you cite all have their own ideological biases.
I’m not a fan of Johnny Harris but this idea that there is an objective source of news and journalism is nonsense. Watch Johnny Harris and watch other sources as well.
Using blanket terms like pseudo-scientific, misinformation, and “fake news” immediately makes the conversation opinionated and more like a debate. The author of such statements makes themselves the arbiter of truth, which is gaslighting. What is truth? Well…. It depends.
Great video! I appreciate your content, and I always look forward to your videos, because each one is very high quality and well made!
Just one little detail I’d like to respectfully point out, if I may: In the displayed dialogue the word “weather” is repeatedly used as a comparative term, and that is a homonym mixup.
*Weather* is the changeable conditions and natural phenomena that influence our environment and atmosphere. (Think rain, heat, wind, snow, etc.)
*Whether* is a term used to compare and contrast between multiple subjects or options; and therefore is the word that _should_ have been used here, instead of weather.
I hope this small note is helpful! Keep up the great work!! 🤗
Thank you! It has been noted in the pinned comment 😁
I'm not defending Johnny Harris, but I think this video has a number of problems. The biggest one is that the overall style is fragmented; it too often comes across as a collection of semi-related clips and not a coherent argument. I assume this is meant to be an intentional "mosaic" style of presentation, but even at the end of the video, the pieces of the mosaic do not form a complete picture. It seems that Johnny Harris has been critiqued from many angles, for many reasons. But this video does not dig deep enough into any of them to present any of the reasons clearly. In most cases it would be necessary for viewers to have seen both Harris' original videos, and the videos of the critics you have excerpted. One example is where you clip Tom Nicholas claiming Harris is engaged in propaganda, but you never say anything else about Nicholas' argument. His video was the first one I ever saw critiquing Harris - in fact it was the first time I ever heard of Harris - and it was about how Harris took money from a neoliberal policy group to promote their agenda. It was devoted to a single Harris video. But your clip seems to imply that Nicholas was characterizing Harris' work in general. Yet you don't elaborate on the point, so the viewer is left in a state of confusion.
You include multiple clips showing Harris seeming to be inconsistent about whether he is doing journalism or something else, and also showing that he does not seem to have a good understanding of what journalism is. You use the BBC as a contrasting example. But you also include a number of clips from leftist critics of Harris, and I'm pretty sure all of them would have some strong criticisms of the BBC's journalistic integrity. It's not impossible for you to do both, but you do not attempt to reconcile the differences. The result is to make it unclear where you stand.
In some cases, the clips you use from Harris seem reasonable on their face, but you take a negative attitude towards them. For example, I would not have thought it controversial to claim that journalism has been corrupted by entertainment values, but you apparently reject the idea and seem to defend the current trends in mainstream journalism. Or is this meant simply to point to contradictions in Harris' claims about his own work?
My uncertainty points to another problem in the video. You often present a clip from Harris, then your animated text is given as a response, but it's generally not clear exactly what you're trying to say about the clip. For example, Harris says the news is "too fun", then in another clip he emphasizes how much he values "presentation." You seem to be both critiquing what you want us to believe is inconsistent, and defending the "fun" in modern news. Then you give some stats about people getting news from different sources; then you list some types of bias ... by this point you've lost me. I can no longer figure out what your argument even is. You then present a new clip where Harris doesn't understand the different between news and debate. But how is this connected to the earlier clip about news being "fun"?
In short, you throw a lot of stuff on-screen without enough context or connective tissue.
This is all the more important since some of your claims seem questionable. Later in the video you use a short clip of Harris saying that some people don't deserve to be heard. Then you describe this as "gatekeeping bias". But this argument needs to be fleshed out to make any sense. Was Harris really gatekeeping here, or was he simply saying that some positions are so irrational, bigoted, and lacking in evidence that they don't deserve to be taken seriously? Surely a charitable reading of Harris would be possible on this point. Or would further context demonstrate that this was in fact an example of gatekeeping bias? There's no way to tell from what you include in the video.
Oddly, your video doesn't mention anything about Harris' response to any of his critics. I don't have a clear picture of this myself, but I do recall hearing that Harris responded to a wave of criticism of a history video from about a year ago. I think he admitted some errors and promised to do better. Has he improved? This video does not address the matter at all.
Finally, your animated text has too many spelling errors. No one is perfect, but this comes off as careless.
Thank you for the amazing comment.
My intention was to show what has been said to highlight various concerns. Specific details of each concern left to the individual arguments made. Using those concerns as evidence that Johnny, like many TH-cam journalists, have faulty source, correction, retraction, and conflict of issue practices.
I tried to pose questions rather than make claims, but misunderstanding or interpretation could be my wording in the script. I will review it in the discord.
I believe I mention Johnny using one of the creator critiques in future videos, but many of the conversations publicly available are case specific. With my intention of focusing on faulty journalistic practices, I wanted to avoid case specifics, but that could have been an error on my part.
There have been spelling, and grammar errors added to the pinned comment. Those in peer review didn't pick up on them, but I agree it doesn't look good. If you have noticed any others, do let me know.
My takeaway from this is that you would like more detail and depth of the analysis, leading to a longer video with more context. It was something I considered. Perhaps a longer, more context heavy video is warranted. 😁
This was immensely informative. I have been following Johnny Harris for a long time and would view the topics from his narrative but this idea of social credibility as being a qualification of a TH-cam presenter has given me something to think about.
Thank you looking forward for more great content.
Moreover, in addition to making official retractions and clarifications, news publications will often censure or outright fire reporters for filing erroneous stories. Especially egregious acts, like plagiarism or falsifying quotes, could get a reporter blacklisted from the industry entirely. No such direct and immediate consequence for failure exists for TH-cam documentarians.
17:30 Whether or not....not weather or not, I learnt something new today.
Thank you. This was a very interesting video. Also: it’s *”clarify”* (not clairfy) at timestamp 2:03 (no shade). Just a quick reminder to check your spellcheck because it will do you dirty every time! Cheers.
He also continues to do advertisements for sh!tty companies.
I assumed “freely” meant “without coercion” not “without payment” but I guess that just shows my own biases.
Am I mistaken in interpreting this video as "misleading news is fine when tv does it because they have shareholders and technically you can argue news and journalism aren't the same thing"
BUT when johnny does it "pseudojournalistic.. rhetoric.. who holds him accountable.."
I mean I don't like the guy at all but most of the "takedowns" against him boil down to arguing semantics and fearpeddling (i.e., BUT WHO HOLDS HIM ACCOUNTABLE).
Also the critique about organisations like the BBC having an avenue for updates and apologies is a little bit rich considering that they BARELY use this when it doesn't favour their political donors and/or when it contradicts a htipiece that they put out on purpose.
edit: despite this you have the right to say whatever you want on the internet and as far as I'm concerned that shouldn't change, but you are more or less constructing your information and rhetoric in a not same but similar way to Johnny anyway so.. (and by this I mean the way you present 50% of your information is in a sort of "yeah but the news says they do this so there" kind of way)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
My intention was to point out News, Journalism, and Education are different, and the presentation of information can cloud how people interpret the information shared.
Mainstream news like the BBC present information like Johnny, but from what I have seen, add citations, corrections, retractions, and interview various individuals before reporting 'more'. TH-cam journalists, don't seem to uphold those standards as well, from my experience. Mainstream news still make mistakes, but far fewer than Johnny and others alike.
I would argue that is due to 'lack of standards' in the online space, when there are fewer stakeholders involved.
Much like you, I wouldn't want to change the freedom to share online, but would appreciate and encourage higher scientific standards if the content is intended to be educational in nature.
Nobody is trying to take him down. He posts videos about controversial subjects which will obviously be under a microscope of scrutiny because the way he portrays any given topic can influence his audience potentially unfairly to one side, so obviously people will be critical of his videos that cover complex topics and point out any flaws.
If anything this should be a call to not cite youtube videos as evidence on a given topic and people should do their own learning. I would say the same about traditional media and state sponsored media like the BBC.
it's not pedanticism, he makes some major mistakes and he uses everything except his factuality to sell you on his idea of being professional, having escaped big news to bring you the real truth or some shit like that. When you watch his videos, particularly those that are more political / economic you'll notice they're consumable, TH-cam junk food, but if you pay attention he dumbs things down so much you feel like it's a lecture for toddlers at times and this oversimplification introduces some heavy misinformation, I'm especially talking about the inflation video. I've said it before, it makes me feel like he's a neoliberal PragerU the way nuanced topics are both way oversimplified yet still passed off as high-quality trustworthy information
Johnny is the type of guy who is smart enough to identify ongoing issues but not smart enough to realise that the solutions he's drawn to are the very cause of those issues to begin with
Thank god my eyes opened before I was sucked deep into his lowkey propaganda and misinformation.
His reporting on “news” and “events” are so one sided and very left-lib biased.
I find it just a little funny that whether kept being misspelled as 'weather' in the slides shown.
Haha, and this "Educational Science" TH-camr blindly liked your comment just because he thinks it will help the algorithm. I think I will make a video about failed content creators who resort to bashing successful creators to bait more clicks.
@@ronald3836 Dude, you seriously need to go touch some grass.
Slide at 3:45 spells ‘Media’: “Meida”. I’m not sure if it can be corrected after the video is uploaded but it’s a shame to sully the whole video with one typo.
Great spot. It has already been added to the pinned comment and feedback 😁
I love how many videos there are about debunking Johnny Harris
I do not get why Johnny Harris is still active on TH-cam. The entire TH-cam content creator community has already debunked it. His content is trash.
I don't know whether it works well, but what about a system similar to X's community notes feature?
Exceptional channel, I will suggest it to all my friends. Thank you for your outstanding content.
Johnny Harris looks like the long lost third member of The Chainsmokers.
I like this video, but it would be nice to hear more of your own thoughts as well. The quoting started to feel a bit excessive. The last part of the video where you talk to the camera felt like it should be earlier in the video (an introduction that connects to a conclusion) because it helps us understand your perspective. The many quoted definitions, ideas about how fake news proliferates, and clips from other videos feels redundant and overly cautious when you could be speaking directly about what YOU think is wrong with Johnny Harris’s videos, and why the video your making exists in the first place. Clearly you have a perspective, there’s no need to make it so opaque.
Also take all of that with a grain of salt I’m an idiot who makes nothing
Agreed. Many comments would like a more detailed analytical look including my thoughts. I am working on a follow up 😁
This is when you mix journalism with biased instead of raw just truth
Thank you for your review... but the video seems more a mishmash of tenuously related flashes of ideas, a stream of consciousness if you will, than a coherent critique.
Getting proper education is an individual responsibility i can't expect others to regulate the quality of my education for me.
Fantastic video. I do get links to a lot of news from social media, but I also subscribe to three newspapers and always look for true news sites over blogs and TH-camrs. I'm always wary of "independent journalists," especially if they are funded by clicks and ads. I mostly don't watch cable news and prefer PBS/NPR, BBC, local news over things like CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News. I studied journalism some in school and feel like a real problem is that many of us don't know the difference between "news" and "opinion" sources and I do think the 24-hour cable news cycle is a big factor in that. And I'm that person that reads a blog or opinion piece and cross-references with other sources and always clicks through to links to the original news source to read that.
Like you, I see videos like this and Johnny's more educational than "news" and much prefer videos that show their sources on screen over making me search the description for them. But educational sources should also be held to standards for accuracy. As you mention, real (yeah, I went there) journalists and news sources do edit articles and print retractions and many TH-camrs or bloggers fail to do that. I look for credibility and integrity in my news and, let's face it, that's harder to find on TH-cam.
Great video, however, I noticed some misspellings in some source subtitles, namely: “(11) *BadEmpanada* Live (2023) Johnny Harris CHINA WAR Video Fries My Brain Even More” and “(15) Kyle Hill (2023) TH-cam’s Science *Scam* Crisis”
It’s nothing serious imo, but it is ironic, considering the video does look at the accuracy of citations/referencing. Again, great video, I just find it funny
You can never trust someone who wears AirPods Max during a video that isn't about the product category/tech in general.
Good presentation seems to be more important than actual facts for some channels, which is pretty depressing. There are so many cases of people being fooled by a veneer of professionalism and not factchecking and it’s just pretty sad
Really well done video, when I saw your sub count I was surprised by the production quality
Good lord. Spell check exists and you desperately need it. It’s extremely hard for me to place any degree of confidence in a video where words are spelled by what appears to be a toddler high on crack.
“Ommited”, and “omittions” are very different, creative misspellings of the same root word less than 5 seconds apart in the video.
There is no “GCP Grey” (it’s “CGP”).
I don’t even fathom how someone could invent the spelling “platiagirzed”. I feel like I’m going to have a seizure if I try to sound it out. “Plat-eeya-gear-zid” maybe?
There are more, but that’s why you need an editor not just a comment.
The good news is you could edit and re-upload.
here for CIA johny harris
His worst coverage is of Bharat
So basically disinformation Vs misinformation Vs malinformation?
Although some content creators here on TH-cam aren’t the most thorough with their investigations I still consider many of them better than most mainstream media because the mainstream media is very much biased in their reporting, what they’re reporting on and, are always trying to push their agenda. While content creators (at least the ones I watch) try to avoid peddling to one side, and don’t outright lie to avoid controversy, if not integrity.
His latest video on the Russia-Ukraine War is so disgustingly misleading I actually searched for "Johnny Harris is wrong" on TH-cam and ended up here.
Good video. I've subscribed.
Loving the video, but seriously, you couldn't have spell checked the writing on it? It's full of spelling mistakes!
17:38 *whether*, not 'weather' 😅
Thank you - added to pinnned comment.
Omission not omittion. English is terrible, I don't blame you.
I tried to put citations in the description years ago and TH-cam penalised me for linking outside of their platform. Is that no longer a policy or do you have to become a TH-cam partner?
I don't that is the case. Penalising external links would include social media links which have been on most channels for years.
This pawn of the WEF has spawned a cottage industry in debunking his disingenuity
The reason Johnny harris isn't his great journalism, it's that he's a great story teller.
To followup: I don't really click on journalistic videos. I see a claim in a title and I search that on the greater internet and skip TH-cam entirely. I don't even use Google... yes, there are other search engines that are now better than Google. I look for at least 3 separate sources. One tends to learn quickly how to read between the lines, especially since some of the sources I look for are *actual* *studies* by the *actual* *researchers*. Seriously, why are people trusting a damned TH-cam personality? Third rate garbage.
John talks about how all that stuff is bad for the people but he does the EXACT SAME THING
This if the first video I've seen on Johnny Harris that he didn't comment on with false positivity to criticism. I did expect it though.
i have an İQ of 33, unfortunately, the majority is, all rush to the vaccination site, willingly get shot 4th booster, and i don’t know what really is happening
I think my problem with Johnny Harris and some of the other big infotainment TH-camrs is that it’s really about themselves, not the information they’re conveying. Like how he poses as a journalist, as if he was born with innate attributes that allow him to discern truth and that’s not just a meaningless title he gives himself. He doesn’t need to check facts because his journalist brain can tell what’s true and we can trust him because he calls himself a journalist.
The good TH-camrs are actual experts who chose to share their knowledge on TH-cam regarding their area of expertise, while the bad ones are narcissists who imagine they’re experts on everything because of who they are.
cia harris is his name
I notice if one tends to lean the same way politically or ideologically as Harris they are more likely to overlook issues and use it to “educate” or “inform” others or more terrifyingly, students….
This feels so nit-picky. When he said the news was too fun, I thought it was pretty obvious he was talking about subject matter rather than how the story is stylized.
Many people will click on a video with Harris' face on the thumbnail and find themselves watching a criticism of Harris or a video he has made. Few people ever see or read legitimate criticism of traditional media articles or newspapers, and not for a lack of instances where a story was rife with disinformation or was outright fabricated. I think people are in the habit of analyzing TH-cam videos and doing further investigation once exposed to a topic because they know that errors are often made on TH-cam. But when people read something in a newspaper they just accept it as incontrovertible fact and don't bother to think about the topic any further.
He was in a cult before.
It is quite jarring when Johnny Harris does a political something that happens to align with US politcal stances because it is so uncritically and directly aligned exactly how you expect it to be aligned.
I just feel if johnny would just call himself a educator /creator this would be a non issue, he's just clearly not doing journalism
I'm guessing Grammarly didn't sponsor your video.
Clever video. This needs to be discussed more.
12:37 It's not TH-cam's Fair Use, it's law. Plagiarism is not the same as Copyright Infringement. Fair Use is an exception related to Copyright Infringement not Plagiarism. Fair Use allows someone to use another copyrighted work without expressed permission from the author/owner of the copyrighted work. There is no citation requirement for fair use as of now. Also, something can only be deemed fair use in a case by case basis in the court. TH-cam cannot deem if something is Fair Use or not because that would violate their Safe Harbor protection which pushes Copyright Infringement to the uploader and not the platform as long as TH-cam has a system in place to allow Copyright Infringements to be reported and they stay neutral.
very informative video, keep making such videos.
Usually the news just repeats facts sprinkled with people telling you how to think which isn’t hard to ignore.
Tot the same extent youtube has a 3 copystrike and you're out mentality, it would be great to see something to disuade creators for spreading misinformation
I like this idea!
This idea sounds good but is subject to abuse the same way DMCA strikes are abused. For example, if that were in place, any video on giving history, context, debate over the war in Gaza would have the creator see their channel gone in a day with very little recourse (especially small creators). And don't think youtube could implement verification on that when they can't even keep up with copyright and community guideline strikes.
CIAJohnny is untrustworthy.
I wish I had that sweet WEF money like Johnny
Your analysis was very interesting to watch and I am impressed with the animations considering you're such a new / small creator here on TH-cam. I know animation projects tend to be a huge slog.
With that said, to provide some feedback, I would highly recommend having a friend or perhaps someone you can pay a small amount to go through your video (the actual video, I know you peer review the script) before you upload. It was littered with typos and mistimed animations. E.g. 14:47 "Plagiarized" was spelled "Platiagirzed".
I've spotted at least 10 other examples before that timestamp through casual viewing (I do have the benefit of fresh eyes of course, I know what it's like to stare at the same piece of work so long as you work on it that you grow fatigued).
Edit: I had one more piece of feedback- Some of the animation was quite text heavy, which lead to frustration due to the sheer volume when reading is so much faster than speaking and the words were revealed at speaking speed. I think this style of presenting information is good to emphasise key points, forcing the viewer to slow down and take it in, rather than to be employed for, at a guess, 40% of the total video runtime.
Also, a few of the graphics didn't seem to communicate much to me. For example, I liked the animation sequence that started at around 5:00, but I am not sure what the circles were trying to illustrate at 5:54.
Johnny Harris has had me questioning his intention so often, to the point where i wonder if he isnt a sponsored hack, representing an interest group or, working for the intelligence community.
Wild, I know.
As a Communications graduate, so much of his content 'feels' deeply manufactured.
Wtf??? Citations in a video??? Subscribing immediately!!! I know its the lowest bar, but EVERYONE needs to be doing this.
😅 thank you!
I might make mistakes, but people can call me out and check for themselves 😁