oh yeah the guy is a quintessential lib, and completely agree that it’s scary as fuck that the idea of a nuclear war has been so normalized that we now even have libs making videos on why a nuclear holocaust is bad

He is literally a CIA softboy. He even went to the NATO HQ in Brussels.

A conversation between Johnny Harris and Tom Nicholas in the comment section of that video:

Hey there so I finally watched your video. You raise some strong points (I had only seen the thumbnail when someone sent it to me and figured it was a conspiracy theory about me.) I’m deleting my original comment cuz it’s snarky and undermining. Not warranted for what seems like a well constructed set of arguments against my WEF video. You raise useful points about ethics and journalism in a YouTube context. The short answer to your concerns is that 1. I may not agree with you on where the ethical line is in journalism and working with think tanks to tell stories I feel are compelling. And 2. The video I made with the WEF was the product of me having read a pre order copy of the book (cuz I like books like this) and pitching the WEF on sponsoring a video on the topic of the duck graph. They agreed. I made the video. They didn’t write the script. They didn’t see the script. They didn’t have any creative or editorial influence in the work. They did really solid research and analysis for their book and I wanted to make a video that unpacked it. I think it’s reasonable if you disagree with my decision. But I feel comfortable having done this work. Overall, I’m impressed with your writing and presentation skills in this vid. Well researched and connecting useful dots to make your point. You have a new sub!

Edit:

So, I think I jumped into nice mode the other day (as is my tendency) but, while I’d still like to keep things civil, I can’t help but feel there remain a lot of questions raised by this statement as well as some very convenient timing being involved which I think it would be worth clarifying.

Again, I don’t wanna drag out the “drama” because that’s not what I’m about, but I do think it’s vital to ask questions about what I think most reasonable people would see as deeply unethical practices.

So, if you’ve got a moment, would you mind clarifying:

• How did you come into possession of an advance copy of Stakeholder Capitalism? Knowing how behind the times academic presses (such as Wiley & Sons) can be, it seems unlikely they’re sending out advance copies of books to YouTubers (especially ones who don’t review books and tend not to talk directly about the topics at hand). Was this the result of a previous relationship with the WEF? And, if so, was the book sent to you with the intention of encouraging a partnership on a video?

• Why does an amended version of the script for the video appear on the WEF website as part of the Davos Agenda blogs? Yes, there are differences, but it’s essentially the same piece of writing beneath the surface. From the outside, this suggests a deeper relationship that them just agreeing to sponsor a video—those blog posts were an integral part of the public-facing wrap-around for the event.

• In addition to this, why does the blogpost version of the video feature both yourself and Peter Vanham as authors of the piece? Yes, you draw heavily on his book in the video but the book is also written by Klaus Schwab and his name doesn’t appear on the blogpost.

• Can you see how it might seem convenient that, as you describe it, you happened to approach the WEF out-of-the-blue asking if they wanted to sponsor a video at just the right time for it to launch alongside the Davos Agenda PR campaign, a campaign where they’ve specifically been looking to expand their reach on YouTube in ways they haven’t before (ie. The Davos Daily with Lilly Singh).

If, as you’ve now confirmed above, the video was paid for by the WEF, why did it not (at least the many times I watched it whilst researching this video) use the “Contains Paid Promotion” banner required by YouTube’s terms of service and many countries by law.

• Finally (and this one’s a bit of a broader question), do you regret being so outspoken about the state of contemporary journalism (going so far as to describe some outlets as so focussed on style over substance that they are “not journalism”)? I mostly agree with you there but I think, to most reasonable people, the idea of journalists being paid to promote a certain viewpoint uncritically is far more worrying than some outlets being a bit too entertaining?

Sorry for not putting these points to you sooner (I guess this is why we need real journalists doing proper journalism rather than me having to muddle along and fill in!).

Tagging you so you’ll hopefully see this: @Johnny Harris

Thanks. Have a great weekend. Tom.

Original Comment:

Thanks Johnny. Appreciate you taking the time out to respond. I obviously still disagree with you on where that ethical line sits; I think journalists exist to ask challenging questions of organisations such as the WEF, not to partner with them on content. What that means with regard to journos/educators on YouTube is perhaps hazier given how new this space is and the lack of institutional norms/ethical codes but I think people should remain deeply sceptical of any such work. That aside (as big a point as it may be), I respect your craft and enjoy your stuff.

I’ll pin this as it only seems fair your response gets eyes on it. Hope you’re having a good week.

@Tom_Nicholas my biggest critique of this whole discourse is that I haven’t heard someone engage with the actual content of my explanation. I spent loads of time sifting thru data and literature reviews of wonky journal papers to craft my understanding of income distribution over the past 35 years. I want a debate on THAT. The thrust of my argument. One that yes piggy backs off the work of a Swiss think tank but one that I nonetheless find compelling. I commend your work on unpacking the morphing realities of journalism on YouTube but I worry that writing something off as propaganda based on who paid for it can serve as a weak proxy for actually engaging with evidence and arguments. Just another point to add to the discussion I suppose.

Make of it what you will, I suppose.

I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:

• yewtu.be
• inv.nadeko.net
• yt.artemislena.eu
• piped.video

he’s just a stenographer for the CIA