Johnny Harris's journalistic integrity
A Johnny Harris opinion piece on video journalism on YouTube
Journalistic Integrity
News is:
“New information of interest” […] “Reports of current events”
and Journalism is:
But the independent journalist, Johnny Harris, said back in 2020, "I kind of hate the news".
Arguing American news is prioritizing entertainment to sell products over sharing information, described as a "giant gossip fest".
If News is meant to be a "magnifying glass on our society [...] giving you information on important things" then it’s important to uphold journalistic integrity which includes accuracy, fairness, objectivity, balance, and transparency.
Johnny Harris has become a world leading independent journalist on YouTube, having made videos for Vox news, covering topics of international affairs, history, and geography.
Exploring evidence, then scrutinizing and cross-examining to help people understand.
However, every news source has a spin, and some of Johnny's spins, have been accused of being propaganda, potential plagiarism, and being factually incorrect with discussions of poor research.
Unlike news organisations, independent journalists hold themselves accountable, and use their own ethical standards.
Leading some to suggest:
“the internet […] has allowed for the proliferation of false or misleading news stories.”
Peer review
Johnny has said:
But omitting sources is one reason Johnny’s ability to inform was critiqued. One person jokingly threatened to sue.
Johnny appreciated the call-out, but some videos still lack source links (as I write this), including the video targeted by the sue joke.
A suggested reason for lowered research quality was reduced resources when going independent. Getting help from others doing the ‘craft of journalism’ has increased research quality.
But despite trying to pioneer YouTube journalism, condensing information into stories that are visually surprising and interesting to him.
His work sounds very similar to the news he's critiqued in the past.
Videos that tell you what doesn't matter. A personal preference.
Videos, that are way too fun. In Johnny's case, focusing on animation. Johnny saying presentation and style are just as important as story.
Videos tricking you to feel informed through potential oversimplification, or with factually incorrect content.
Without journal, publisher or editor oversight like in news organisations or scientific publications through peer review, there aren't really rules or qualifications required for independent journalists on YouTube.
Retraction and correction practices also being inconsistent.
Many large YouTube creators relying on their moral code.
Leaving social perception and status, as a primary quality metric for a source.
Amending mistakes
Johnny chose to add corrections in a video description on a video filled with errors, encouraged by a video critique which got more views, however, there is no link in the original video to the critique.
Johnny relying on YouTube to surface the video to the viewer, seemingly going against his statement about not "trusting your viewers to go fact check".
The critique video also has omissions and overlooked some nuance, but adds corrections to the pinned comment.
2 different types of correction. Others taking down videos then reuploading, more like a retraction than correction.
Adding sources has been accepted as good practice, but post publish critiques seem to be left to the consumer, again;
“allowing for the proliferation of false or misleading news stories.”
As it takes longer to discuss a claim than it is to make one, videos like this about Johnny Harris, or this about Cleo Abrams, could be overlooked.
Other experts can further conversations like this economist, but consumers need to go looking.
Plagiarism
Creators respond to the rules of the platform. In Johnny's case, YouTube, because he is renting the space.
But if there is a game, some will try to cheat, or bend the rules.
YouTube has copyright systems to help detect misconduct, but if content is transformative, it could be called fair use.
Fair use, and the tool only picking matches, could leave many potential cases of plagiarism missed.
Some argue reaction channels are plagiarising others content.
Most agree inspiration is not plagiarism, but a case with OBFYT shows how blurry the lines can be.
What is enough to be fair use?
Using your voice instead of the original.
Using your graphics instead of the original.
Rewording sentences from the original.
As fact based videos are easy to copy, mass production of videos with searchable facts are becoming increasingly common.
Video factories are appearing, often producing videos not only oversimplified to the point of being misleading, but can dramatize points to tell a story.
Something Johnny has been accused of doing, alongside other media outlets.
Mass production of plagiarised misleading content, a potential result.
Johnny suggests independent journalism could lead to a world where people:
However, he also says:
With varying standards of journalistic integrity across the profession, trust can be difficult to place on any one voice.
Selling out
With competition rising, money becomes a larger factor in this so called, influencer economy.
Funding and sponsorship of videos is common with larger creators.
However, without acknowledging potential conflicts of interest, this can be seen as bias, or as one person said, propaganda.
'Selling out', a term used to categorize creators, making content for the money, has been seen as negative. However, content creation costs money.
Products, courses, merchandise, advertisement, brand deals and sponsorships, are ways creators earn to keep producing.
With media outlets producing 15+ videos a week, creators maybe 1 a month they can struggle to compete.
Another pressure on journalistic integrity.
Video Journalism
One could argue video essays and mini-documentaries are independent journalism, as long as evidence is explored, scrutinized and cross-examined.
Thus, by extension, any video that claims to use evidence could be independent journalism.
Thus, lines are blurry between journalistic and educational videos.
Suggesting recent events, and interviews, make journalism different from education.
However, it is all independent media, or alternative media, playing the same game.
“everyone is somewhere between 1 and 99% not being truthful in their content”
The mainstream media outcasts have joined alternative media, adding even more competition.
In this digital age of abundant information, publishers, creators and consumers all have roles to play.
But how journalistic integrity is maintained on YouTube is an open question right now.
Leaving the state of video journalism balancing between harmful or helpful.
Have an idea or story to share? Start a discussion here
Want to continue the conversation? Join us here