Thank you for watching. Comments are welcomed and encouraged - what do you think? I heart comments I have seen, and reply to those KZfaq 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 KZfaq 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

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.

Making engaging videos and conducting accurate research are two different things and the algorithm supports engagement over truth 99% of the time.

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.

The irony behind Johnny Harris is that he became the very thing that he was criticising

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 KZfaq 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.

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

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).

Perhaps KZfaq would benefit from an integrity network? A voluntary network that KZfaqrs 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.

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.

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.

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.

Johnny unfortunately falls victim to a lot of other 'educational' channels that get too hyperbolic.

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.

Whenever I can hear someone sneering through their voice while making an argument, I usually turn off what's playing in about 60 seconds.

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!"

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.

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.

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!

Adding in a community notes feature like Twitters to KZfaq 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.

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.

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.

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.

Can’t wait until hbomderguy gets to this one

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!

You may want to run your script through a spell-checker if you're going to put it all on screen ;)

I subscribed JUST from the detailed source list... I love finding gold mines like yours and cant wait to see this channel explode

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.

Normally wouldn't point out typos or the like, but "platiagirzed" @ 14:44 is just to excellent to ignore.

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

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.

I assumed “freely” meant “without coercion” not “without payment” but I guess that just shows my own biases.

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.

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!

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 KZfaq documentarians.

I find it just a little funny that whether kept being misspelled as 'weather' in the slides shown.

I don't know whether it works well, but what about a system similar to X's community notes feature?

Really well done video, when I saw your sub count I was surprised by the production quality

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.

He will always been the "Angry Breakfast Guy" to me no matter what lol

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 KZfaq presenter has given me something to think about. Thank you looking forward for more great content.

Exceptional channel, I will suggest it to all my friends. Thank you for your outstanding content.

13:03 If your red paint is mixed with blue paint, but the red paint is overwhelming vibrant, will the red paint get upset at the blue paint for not mixing too much?

0:00: 📰 The video discusses the changing landscape of news reporting and the blurred lines between journalism and entertainment. 0:00: News often distorts the view of the world by focusing on rare events. 1:00: The news has become more entertainment-focused, prioritizing presentation and style. 1:35: Changes in news consumption habits have consequences. 2:09: Different biases and gatekeeping practices can affect news coverage. 2:54: The distinction between journalism and debate is highlighted. 3:39: Journalistic integrity is important for maintaining standards and expectations. 4:00: The video raises questions about the integrity of the presenter and the content. 4:49: 📰 The video discusses the complexities of fake news and journalistic integrity on the internet. 4:49: The internet has allowed for the proliferation of false or misleading news stories. 5:11: Different intentions behind news stories can lead to disinformation, regardless of initial accuracy. 7:08: The importance of documenting research and retracting/correcting content over time is emphasized. 8:45: Independent journalists have different freedoms and qualifications compared to mainstream news. 9:00: Video essay channels on KZfaq may use aesthetics to enhance credibility, but mistakes can still occur. 9:15: 📽 The video discusses the spread of misinformation, fact-checking, and plagiarism on KZfaq. 9:15: Misinformation and fact-checking are important considerations for content creators. 9:38: Mainstream media and alternative media handle corrections differently. 10:02: The issue of responsibility in trusting viewers to fact-check information is raised. 10:47: The importance of adding sources for credibility is emphasized. 12:40: The difficulty of policing plagiarism on KZfaq is discussed. 13:11: The limitations of KZfaq's copyright tool are highlighted. 13:31: Inspiration and quoting are distinguished from plagiarism. 13:52: 📰 The video discusses the challenges of maintaining integrity and accuracy in content creation on KZfaq. 13:52: The internet has allowed for the proliferation of false or misleading news stories. 14:42: Plagiarized content and AI-generated content contribute to misinformation and disinformation. 15:40: KZfaq's responsibility in maintaining creator integrity is complex due to fair use and free speech laws. 16:29: Independent journalists aim to create work with journalistic rigor while maintaining a personal connection with their audience. 17:35: There is a debate on whether oversimplified economics in content amounts to misinformation. 17:53: The mainstream media and creator industry are still figuring out media integrity on KZfaq. 18:11: Social network sites play a significant role in generating traffic to fake news. 18:47: 🎥 The video discusses the importance of media integrity in KZfaq education and the need for ongoing conversations about topics. 18:47: The importance of Integrity in media and KZfaq creators 19:23: The impact of media trends on news outlets and KZfaq 19:40: The financial risk and consequences of letting Integrity slip in KZfaq videos 20:11: The need for scientific research skills and practices in KZfaq education 20:36: The focus on journalistic Integrity, sourcing, corrections, and retractions 21:03: The availability of sources, corrections, and retractions, and the peer review process 21:15: The invitation for ongoing conversation and engagement in Discord Recapped using Tammy AI

Usually the news just repeats facts sprinkled with people telling you how to think which isn’t hard to ignore.

Sir, would you please let me know what font you use for those black chapter title screen.

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

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!! 🤗

very informative video, keep making such videos.

17:30 Whether or not....not weather or not, I learnt something new today.

Clever video. This needs to be discussed more.

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.

17:38 *whether*, not 'weather' 😅

Very good production quality

You gotta work on your spelling as nearly every bit you added had enormous errors

I love how many videos there are about debunking Johnny Harris

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)

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….

Your analysis was very interesting to watch and I am impressed with the animations considering you're such a new / small creator here on KZfaq. 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.

Getting proper education is an individual responsibility i can't expect others to regulate the quality of my education for me.

All great, but do you even proofread your text animations, bro. ;)

Whether or not the weather in The UK is dependent on people's opinions, I still believe ( in my opinion) , that a person should clarify whether or not they are talking about the weather or an opinion on the weather.

Interesting video. As someone interested in creating content that educates, you covered points I should be more widely considered

His latest video on the Russia-Ukraine War is so disgustingly misleading I actually searched for "Johnny Harris is wrong" on KZfaq and ended up here. Good video. I've subscribed.

You can never trust someone who wears AirPods Max during a video that isn't about the product category/tech in general.

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 KZfaq 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 KZfaq personality? Third rate garbage.

Although some content creators here on KZfaq 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.

Was whether, misspelled "weather" in the original? (17:46-17:52) It's odd to see such a glaring error in a video that is using written cue cards as its information delivery style (about accuracy, no less). Might like to take a look at that.

Weather? Whether? Which is which? Is this the correct form? I’m confused…

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 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.

I feel like some of the best KZfaqrs are way ahead of mainstream media in sourcing their info. I can go to a source from a KZfaq video and end up on a TV news report and then the trail of sources ends. So often it’s ‘trust me bro’

Johnny Harris looks like the long lost third member of The Chainsmokers.

I kept wondering if this is an add for Ground News. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind that at all. The idea of a blind spot is disconcerning.

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.

Amazing video Danny

I enjoy watching Johnny Harris videos but I have definitely always felt like he is more on the Hollywood side than the journalist side. I think usually that's also because he keeps the history of things very simple and light for the viewer.

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

People still watch Johnny Harris? Didn’t we outgrow him several years ago? Weird…

First exposure to him was only 5 min of his Swiss Gun bit so admittedly I didn't give him the benefit of a full post. But my first thought was his presentation/cadence comes off contrived, trite, disingenuous, etc, and it made me think that is certainly in attempt to cover up a bait and switch or something misleading is hidden within the video like what you get in John Oliver's monologs. This video comes out a few days later.

4:19 after the Past & Present made that video, he started working for Johnny. That struck me as “odd”; is he trying to quiet his critics by offering up his resources and audience?

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.

10:10 isnt Johnny talking about Joe Rogans podcast? I havnt seen that video but looking from the title of it. Wouldnt he be talking about the podcast and not actual journalism since a podcast isnt a journalistic source ?? Or was he actually talking about journalism and his own videos

I enjoy Harris' reporting, but he only provides one subset of that data points that I use when assembling an opinion.

The only video i trily ever got to enjoy fully from Johnny was his breakfast video. I really loved that video and it wasnt even journalism. I guess that shows what he should be making

unfornately, most debates these days have turned into mutual screaming sessions with each side trying to make points.

It's whether, not weather.

3:43 typo of "media" spelled "meida"

I mean... I render loop videos with Blender, and create original stories for long form listening. Where is the lying happening? So, no, not EVERYONE is lying on one level or another.

17:40 whether*

good video. much information

The weird thing is, Harris has be caught talking bullshit times and times again. There are several big YT videos debunking him. But somehow, his channel just does not take a hit at all.

I think my problem with Johnny Harris and some of the other big infotainment KZfaqrs 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 KZfaqrs are actual experts who chose to share their knowledge on KZfaq regarding their area of expertise, while the bad ones are narcissists who imagine they’re experts on everything because of who they are.

Whether, not weather

I've been watching his videos for a while and I find them entertaining, however i always have it in the back of my mind that I am watching propaganda

Source link doesn't work?

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 KZfaqrs. 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 KZfaqrs 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 KZfaq.

Watched some of his videos a while back and I noticed how much he would repeat things in a way that was unnecessary. This told me he was basically just saying things and didn’t have a well researched and thought out script

He was in a cult before.