Select Page

Original & Concise Bullet Point Briefs

Johnny Harris: A Story of YouTube Propaganda

YouTube Influencer Johnny Harris Sparks Controversy with Stakeholder Capitalism Video

  • Johnny Harris is a YouTube influencer and former Vox journalist
  • He has created content about global geography and recently released two videos: “I’m a Journalist Who Hates The News” and “How China Became So Powerful”
  • The latter video was alarming as it featured Harris advocating for an idea called “stakeholder capitalism” which he loosely defined
  • The video raised concerns about independent journalism and the influence of the “influencer economy”
  • Harris usually steers clear of making polemical videos.

Global Elite & The Great Reset: Is Capitalism a Force for Good?

  • Johnny Harris produced a video in partnership with the World Economic Forum (WEF)
  • The WEF is an NGO that encourages business and political leaders to collaborate to create “positive change”
  • Though it claims to be impartial, its 408 million US dollar annual revenue comes from fees paid by companies such as Apple, Amazon, Google and Pfizer
  • The Great Reset initiative is a rebranding of capitalism as a force for good
  • Conspiracy theorists suggest Bill Gates and the global elite are attempting to establish a New World Order but this unfounded.

World Economic Forum, YouTube Creators and Surfshark: The Cost of Disinformation and Propaganda

  • The World Economic Forum’s decision to work with Johnny Harris in creating a video about “stakeholder capitalism” is a means for global corporations and the super-rich to pretend to have seen the error of their ways
  • Partnerships between companies and YouTube creators are used to spread propaganda and disinformation, especially when those creators purport to be journalists
  • Surfshark, a VPN service, offers 83% off a two year plan and an extra three months for free
  • This allows users to securely browse the web and keep their online activity hidden from ISPs
  • With features such as CleanWeb mode, users can block trackers, malware, ads and trick websites into thinking they are in other countries.

Brand Deals, Content Control, and Johnny Harris Davos Agenda Video

  • Brand deals between companies and influencers involve either an integration (a relatively distinct section in which the product or service is told about, with a discount code/affiliate link) or a sponsored post (a video made entirely by the company’s request)
  • Control of content is key when it comes to journalism
  • Johnny Harris’ video “How China Became So Powerful” coincided with the 2021 Davos Agenda meeting, and an alternative version of the script was published on the World Economic Forum’s website, embedded with Harris’ YouTube video.

The Power of Capitalism? Harris and Vanhams Promotional Video Raises Questions About the World Economic Forums Agenda

  • Harris and Vanham partnered to produce a video on the power of China
  • The content was apparently shaped by the World Economic Forum’s agenda
  • This is not journalism but promotional content
  • Harris, who presents as journalist, is helping to push the message that capitalism will solve world issues
  • Many young people are asking questions about how our world should be run and the WEF sees this as a threat
  • Harris may have been naive or hesitant to admit media ownership affects reporting
  • Independent journalists have potential to offer new perspectives and voices, but can also become vectors for misinformation.

Canadian YouTuber J.J. McCullough and Threats to Independent Journalism

  • The Canadian YouTuber J.J. McCullough was approached by someone with a connection to the Chinese government to post pro-China propaganda on his channel
  • Johnny Harris, an independent journalist, acknowledged his partnership with the World Economic Forum at the end of one of his videos
  • We need to resist this kind of deal becoming a norm or else risk losing potential for independent journalism on YouTube in favor of paid-for misinformation that looks like journalism but is really just propaganda.

Original & Concise Bullet Point Briefs

With VidCatter’s AI technology, you can get original briefs in easy-to-read bullet points within seconds. Our platform is also highly customizable, making it perfect for students, executives, and anyone who needs to extract important information from video or audio content quickly.

  • Scroll through to check it out for yourself!
  • Original summaries that highlight the key points of your content
  • Customizable to fit your specific needs
  • AI-powered technology that ensures accuracy and comprehensiveness
  • Scroll through to check it out for yourself!
  • Original summaries that highlight the key points of your content
  • Customizable to fit your specific needs
  • AI-powered technology that ensures accuracy and comprehensiveness

Unlock the Power of Efficiency: Get Briefed, Don’t Skim or Watch!

Experience the power of instant video insights with VidCatter! Don’t waste valuable time watching lengthy videos. Our AI-powered platform generates concise summaries that let you read, not watch. Stay informed, save time, and extract key information effortlessly.

This is a story about YouTube, journalism and what I think it’s only right to describe  as propaganda. It takes place at the unlikely meeting point between traditional news reporting,  the “influencer economy” and a multi-million dollar campaigning organisation which exists  to advocate for the interests of the world’s largest corporations.  And it centres on one of YouTube’s rising stars of the past 12 months: Johnny Harris.So, a few months ago, I was sat on my sofa, mindlessly scrolling the homepage of the  YouTube app when something increasingly rare happened: the all-powerful algorithm served up  a video I was genuinely interested in. The video was by a creator named Johnny Harris  who, by all accounts, has had a pretty good year on the platform. Until 2020,  Harris was a video journalist for Vox, where he created the much-celebrated (and  Emmy-nominated) series Borders. That year, after four seasons, Vox made the surprising  decision to cancel Borders and Harris left the company to strike out on his own as an  independent creator. He has remained prolific, combining making casual lifestyle content with  continuing to produce highly-polished, broadly geography-themed reportage-slash-explainer videos.The video of Harris’ I was recommended is called I’m a Journalist Who Hates The News  and is a really interesting watch. There is a lot of critique, complaint and outright conspiracist  discussion about the mainstream media on YouTube, but there’s something relatively  unique about hearing the perspective of a professional journalist on the current  state of the press. Harris themes his critique of the news (in particular television news)  around three headers, but they all coalesce around the same notion: that the contemporary media  puts too much emphasis on making its reporting exciting, entertaining or otherwise emotive in  ways which actually leave us less informed about the world around us than we would be without it.Now, I really enjoyed that video; just as I have enjoyed a lot of Harris’ work. A month  or so later, however, I was recommended another video from his channel which was frankly alarming;  and not so much for what was said (although that wasn’t great either) but for the behind-the-scenes  reasons for why it was said and the exchange of (even if not money) access and support  which brought it into existence. This second video not only changed my perspective on Harris’ work,  but also provoked some alarming questions about the future of independent journalism  in cases where, as with Harris, that journalism comes into contact with the so-called  “influencer economy”. For, it raised the prospect of a new kind of influencer brand deal  (made all the more worrisome when that creator presents themselves as a journalist) where,  unlike the plugs for, say, the fantastic VPN services of Surfshark that have become  a mainstay of platforms such as YouTube, a creator is not paid simply to sell a product  or service, but gives over creative control of their platform to those seeking to sell an idea.The video of Harris’ that provoked these concerns is titled How China Became So Powerful.  For the first minute or so, it seems to be a fairly standard Johnny Harris video;  an engagingly-written, gorgeously-edited attempt to demystify a country which most people in the  English-speaking world know shamefully little about. Things take a slight turn around the  90-second mark when, in an effort to try and add some global context to his discussion of China,  Harris evidences a pretty threadbare understanding of post-Second World War politics and economics.Yet, it’s around the 7-minute mark when things become bizarre. At this point,  Harris stops talking about China almost entirely and, instead, embarks upon a polemic about the  state of contemporary capitalism. Drawing on a couple of graphs, he argues that what he calls  “shareholder capitalism” has led to massive inequality both globally and within  individual nations. He also charges “shareholder capitalism” with having put the very planet we  live on in jeopardy through its preference for increasing profits over reducing CO2 emissions.  And, of course, thus far, he’s right. The truly odd moment comes when he begins to offer us  a solution to these crises. Does the route to addressing inequality and the climate emergency  lie in moving away from this evidently and existentially destructive system? No,  he sarcastically laughs that idea off pretty quickly. The solution, according to Harris,  lies in a subtle shifting away from what he calls “shareholder capitalism”  and towards something he calls “stakeholder capitalism”: an idea which he defines so loosely  as to make it almost meaningless but which broadly involves corporations taking into account the  impact of their business practices on people and the planet as well as trying to turn a  profit for shareholders. In fact, he goes further, to suggest that companies such as  Walmart, Apple and JP Morgan are already doing this. Fantastic, I guess then, crises averted.Now, I don’t have a problem with polemical YouTube videos; a good deal of my channel is comprised of  such content. Yet, this is not the kind of video that Harris usually makes. During his time at Vox,  he was a reporter, not an opinion writer. Outside of How China Became So Powerful  and I’m a Journalist Who Hates The News, Harris might point to a localised problem in the country  or region he is reporting on but he usually steers well clear of making any pronouncements about how  we can solve these problems. As vague as the notion of “stakeholder capitalism” might be,  to hear him suddenly promoting a unified global political and economic system was, in all honesty,  a bit of a shock. It just seemed out of character.At the very end of the video, however, we get an explanation for Harris’ pivot to political  idealist which, for anyone who values journalism in any way should be deeply, deeply worrying.  In the final minute when, realistically, most people will have stopped watching, Harris reveals  that this video was produced in partnership with an organisation called the World Economic Forum.  He tells us how great the World Economic Forum is and encourages us to buy a book by  their founder and current Executive Chairman, Klaus Schwab. We’ll talk in a second about  what the World Economic Forum is but, in short, this is a promotional video. And, not only in the  sense of containing a brief plug within it but in the sense that, from beginning to end, this is an  advert. It may be dressed up as essentially an independently-created episode of Borders, yet,  this is not journalism; this is a piece of propaganda produced in very close partnership  with (in fact, as we’ll see shortly, seemingly co-written by a very senior PR Executive from)  an organisation which no journalist should be uncritically echoing the talking points of.  The same guy who, two months previously, was bemoaning the state of journalism was now  (even if not selling, in which case I would question his business acumen) at the very least  lending his platform and journalistic reputation  to exactly the kind of organisation which we expect journalists to be critical of.So, before we dig deeper into why someone who presents themselves as a journalist  creating sponsored content of this kind is so worrying, I think it’s useful to take a brief  look at what the World Economic Forum (or WEF) is. For, Harris describes it merely as a “think  tank” and its (frankly quite boring) name makes it sound fairly harmless, right? Well, to use the  proper terminology, the WEF is an international non-governmental organisation (or NGO). What this  means is that it is essentially a campaigning group which attempts to persuade both national  governments and supranational organisations such as the United Nations and European  Union to implement certain political and economic policies. Many large charities are NGOs; alongside  its direct aid and poverty relief activities, for example, the charity Oxfam also operates as an NGO  which advocates for the adoption of policies which alleviate poverty and suffering.If Oxfam advocates for an end to poverty, then, what does the World Economic Forum  campaign for? Well, on its website, the WEF describes itself (again in cryptic corporate  speak) as ‘the International Organisation for Public-Private Cooperation’, continuing  that ‘the Forum engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society  to shape global, regional and industry agendas’. In short, it seeks to bring Presidents, Prime  Ministers and other governmental figures together with CEOs and business leaders to encourage them  to think about how they might work together to, as they describe it, ‘make positive change’.As the notion of “stakeholder capitalism” that Johnny Harris discusses in his video suggests,  the World Economic Forum tends to remain fairly vague about exactly what “positive change”  they are working towards. We can begin to get some idea of the kind of policies that  the Forum might promote, however, by taking a look at how it’s funded. For,  whilst the WEF claims to be ‘independent, impartial and not tied to any special interests’,  its annual revenue of just over 408 million US dollars (as of 2020) comes mostly from the  fees paid by global corporations such as Apple, Amazon, Google, Pfizer, Lockheed Martin, Nestlé,  The Coca Cola Company, Goldman Sachs and pretty much every other significant global company to be  “partners” of the Forum, to attend its glitzy events and to shape the policies it advocates for.Now, some draw on the World Economic Forum’s function as essentially an advocacy organisation  for the richest companies in the world as the basis for highly spurious conspiracy theories.  To give the most recent example of this, a key part of the WEF’s activities is its  organisation of the annual Davos Summit in which billionaires, business leaders and heads of state  gather in the resort town of Davos in the Swiss Alps to discuss the future of global economics and  politics. The 2021 event, which owing to the continuing COVID-19 pandemic took  place online (and which, as we’ll see, Johnny Harris’ video was produced to coincide with),  saw the WEF launch an initiative which it called “The Great Reset”. Online conspiracy theorists  soon took this foreboding title as proof that Bill Gates and the rest  of the global elite were finally getting around to establishing the New World Order.The truth is more mundane. As the journalist George Monbiot put it on Twitter,  “The Great Reset” ‘is basically a cynical rebranding of capitalism as a force for good’.  For the most part, it’s an attempt to convince us that the World Economic Forum and its corporate  partners recognise the various economic and ecological crises which our present economic  system has engendered and to make it seem as though they’re going to do something about it.  In reality, very little will actually change  (at least when it comes to dealing with inequality and the climate emergency).In a recent article for The Intercept, Naomi Klein concurs, pointing out that this kind of  “rebranding” exercise is nothing new for the Forum. Since the early 2000s, the WEF (and the  Davos Summit in particular) have become a platform for global corporations to feign regret about  the human and environmental consequences of their business practices. They regularly invite climate  and inequality activists to give them a public dressing-down in front of the world’s press.  It was at Davos in 2019 that Greta Thunberg declared that ‘our house is on fire’. That same  year, the Dutch journalist Rutger Bregman garnered global headlines when he implored the Summit  to ‘start talking about taxes’; by which he meant that the rich needed to be paying more tax and  that governments needed to be cracking down on tax avoidance. Both Thunberg and Bregman’s comments  received solemn nods and gracious applause from Davos attendees, but led to zero material action.Davos and the World Economic Forum, then, are essentially where the richest 1%  go to pretend to have a conscience. While I’m sure there’s plenty of backroom wheeling and  dealing which is facilitated by the WEF, in terms of its public-facing activities,  it serves as a means for global corporations and the super-rich to repeatedly pretend to have  seen the error of their ways and to be on the cusp of change  before they go back to their boardrooms to carry on with business as usual.The World Economic Forum’s decision to work with Johnny Harris to create a video about  how companies such as Apple and Walmart are currently enthusiastically moving away from  “shareholder capitalism” and towards this vague notion of “stakeholder capitalism” is just another  in a long line of examples of the Forum attempting to convince us that, against all the evidence,  they are even remotely concerned about anything other than profit. For the purposes of today’s  video, however, I’m not overly interested in the specific claims that Harris makes in How China  Became So Powerful. Instead, I’m interested in the partnership between Harris and the WEF  that led to him making those claims and the warning it represents about the growing trend  of governments and advocacy organisations such as the WEF using YouTube (and YouTube creators)  to spread propaganda and disinformation; and why we should be particularly worried about  this trend in instances where those creators purport to be journalists.So, this video isn’t propaganda but this portion of it has been sponsored  by the fantastic VPN services of Surfshark. Protect yourself online by heading over to to get 83% off a 2-year plan and an extra 3 months for free,  allowing you to securely and privately browse the web for just $2.21 a month.Whether you’re a journalist or not, keeping your online activity hidden from the prying eyes of  Internet Service Providers and increasingly tracker-ridden websites is currently more  important than ever with so many of us working from home. Surfshark has enabled me and can  enable you to do this quickly and easily with no advanced tech knowledge required by essentially  creating a private internet connection to keep you safe and secure whenever you’re online.Surfshark is packed full of features, such as their “CleanWeb” mode, which not only blocks  trackers and malware but also ads and which I’ve found has made my browsing experience  infinitely more pleasurable. You can also use it to trick websites (such as streaming  services) into thinking you’re in other countries, unlocking tons of extra content.So, if you want to take advantage of that incredible, time-limited offer of 83%  off a two year plan and an extra three months for free, you can support the  channel by letting them know I sent you through heading over to again to Surfshark for sponsoring this bit of today’s video. Now, on with the show.Earlier in this video, I suggested that the reason that Harris’ How China Became So  Powerful video was so worrying was because (in addition to the fact that Harris is presenting  himself as a journalist) the relationship between Harris and the World Economic Forum  appeared to go much deeper than the kind of relationship which underlies most of the other  brand deals, ad placements and shout-outs that you’re likely used to seeing on YouTube. Whilst  it might seem like a little bit of a digression, then, I think, in order to explain this fully,  it’s useful to give a very brief sense of how such sponsorships tend to work.Now, there are many ways in which companies work with creators on this and other social  media platforms to promote, usually, products and services. If you want a more complete overview,  I would suggest checking out Tom Scott’s video about influencers and product placement.  Generally speaking, however, there are two main types of paid brand deal on YouTube.The terminology varies, but the first is what, for today’s purposes, we’ll call an “integration”.  This entails a creator making a video in almost exactly the way they would if it wasn’t sponsored.  The only difference is that a company will pay them to, at some point,  segue into a (usually relatively distinct) section in which they tell you about the product or  services sold by that company; much like I did earlier in this video with the Surfshark spot.  The creator will normally encourage you to use a discount code or follow an affiliate  link (again just like I did) which helps the company sponsoring the video to get a sense  of whether it’s worth them sponsoring more videos by that creator in the future. The  creator will then, in most cases, segue back into the main topic of the video.An integration of this kind is essentially an ad break. Companies will normally be keen to  advertise in videos about topics relevant to their product or service and will often have  other topics they’ll avoid. They’ll also give the creator some bullet points regarding the  particular features of the product or service they sell which they’d like the creator to highlight  within the integration section. Outside of this, however, creative control over the wider video  is entirely in the hands of the creator. Whilst there are higher-level ways in which the prospect  of scoring a sponsorship might encourage creators to cover certain topics and to  avoid others which are more complex than we’ve got time to go into today,  the company generally has no say in the content of the wider video.The second type of brand deal relevant to our discussion is what we’ll refer to as a  “sponsored post”. Here, a company partners with a creator to produce a video which  they otherwise probably wouldn’t have made at all. In most cases, this will involve a  creator making a video about a product or service the company sells and presenting  it in a pretty much uncompromisingly positive light. As an example of this,  we might look at this video by the channel Linus Tech Tips in which the host, Linus, tells us how  all your computer backing-up needs can be solved by purchasing a device by a particular company.  Where an integration essentially involves the insertion of an ad break in a video,  a sponsored post is basically an advert in its entirety. From beginning to end,  the whole purpose of the video is to sell a particular product or service. Alongside the  fact that the creator usually wouldn’t have made the video at all if they hadn’t been paid to, the  key difference here is that the company paying for the video has significant creative control over  the final product. Whilst they’ll normally rely on the creator to write, film and edit the video,  they might ask for a section to be taken out or for something to be added in order to ensure it  achieves their objective of presenting their company, product or service in the best light.In my experience, people are generally more amenable to integrations than they are to wholly  sponsored posts. At least, I hope so given that this video contains an integration. I know that,  as a medium-sized creator whose income through the automated ads on YouTube can vary wildly,  integration deals can make a big difference in providing some kind of financial stability  to my life. This is the same for a lot of creators and I like to think that viewers  understand this. When it comes to wholly sponsored videos, however, I think people are rightly more  sceptical. However upfront a creator is about the sponsoring company’s involvement,  it’s hard to eradicate the aura of insincerity and the notion that the scales have shifted from  a creator using a brand deal to better enable them to create content for their audience  to using their audience to allow them to get a brand deal with a company.Now, given how focussed we’ve been on the selling of products or services in this section, it might  seem to not be all that relevant to the case of Johnny Harris and the World Economic Forum. But,  this issue of control over the content of a video (or, indeed, a written article or any other kind  of content) only becomes more important when it comes to that which is presented as journalism.So, to return to Johnny Harris, we don’t know what kind of arrangement existed between Harris  and the World Economic Forum. In his brief acknowledgement of the WEF’s involvement  in the video at the very end of How China Became So Powerful, Harris initially suggests that they  merely provided him with the graphs which he uses to illustrate some of his points;  although both graphs are freely and widely available on the internet. He later  describes the video as having been produced ‘in partnership’ with the WEF. It’s all very vague.Now, it’s entirely possible that Harris’ partnership with the World Economic Forum  didn’t involve the exchange of a single penny. Perhaps the allure of working with such a large  and influential organisation was enough. Yet, I think the most important takeaway  from our discussion of the differing forms of relationship between companies and influencers  is not that money exchanges hands or how much but this issue of control over the content.  And, this is where things get interesting.See, not only did the release of How China Became So Powerful coincide with the 2021  Davos Agenda meeting, but an alternative, text version of the script for that video  was included as part of a series of blog posts published on the World Economic Forum’s website  which served as provocations for the wider event. The blog post is shorter than the  video and is worded differently but has the same structure, references the same events,  draws on the same data sets and makes all the same points. The video which Harris released on YouTube  is also embedded within the blog. What’s particularly interesting is that, here,  it is not only Harris who appears as the author of the piece; in fact, he’s only listed as the second  author. The other author, who gets top billing, is Peter Vanham, the Head of Communications for the  World Economic Forum’s Chairman’s Office (and who, as a side note, co-wrote the book on Stakeholder  Capitalism by the World Economic Forum’s Executive Chairman, Klaus Schwab, which Harris recommends  at the end of How China Became So Powerful). Harris’ video, then, was not only influenced  by the talking points of the World Economic Forum and was not only produced in partnership with them  but was seemingly co-written by one of the organisation’s most senior PR executives.In the previous section, we looked at the (fairly routine) practice of creators on  YouTube and other social media sites handing over their platforms and reputations to companies to  create whole posts which present their products in an uncompromisingly flattering light. And, there’s  obviously questions to be asked about the ethics of such deals. But this, to my mind, is far more  worrying. Here, we have an influencer who presents themselves as a journalist shaping their work  to meet the agenda of a campaigning organisation which seeks to encourage us to view the world  from a certain perspective: the perspective of the largest corporations in the world.For, to stress the point, this is not journalism. This is a piece of promotional content,  seemingly co-written by a PR executive, produced as part of a much larger PR campaign which wrapped  around the 2021 Davos Agenda meeting. See, in our contemporary moment, many young people,  assessing the scale of contemporary inequality and of the climate emergency, are asking deep  questions about how they want our world to be run. A 2019 poll found that 70% of Millennials and 64%  of Gen Z’ers in the United States—the ideological centre of contemporary capitalism—would  be somewhat likely or extremely likely to vote for a socialist candidate for President.  The World Economic Forum are more than aware of the threat this poses to the companies  which fund their activities. Their partnership with Harris, then, is essentially an attempt to  use his platform and voice to connect with that demographic in order to say, “hey fellow kids,  capitalism’s cool actually and is totally gonna solve all the problems it’s also causing”. Coming  directly from, say, Lockheed Martin or Goldman Sachs, such a statement would sound ridiculous.  But, place it in the mouth of a relatively young person with a hipster aesthetic,  a sizeable YouTube following, some ridiculously good skills on After  Effects and a reputation for high-quality journalism, and it almost sounds convincing.I do want to say that, for all I’ve criticised Harris in this video, I don’t think that all of  this was necessarily a calculated, nefarious move on his part. One thing that is noticeable in his  video about hating the news is the absence of any real acknowledgement of the issue  of media ownership and how the manner in which media companies being owned by wealthy private  individuals and corporations who would like to stay wealthy might shape the way in which they  report on the world around us. Generally speaking, most journalists are either naive about these  matters or are highly hesitant to admit that how their work is funded might affect their reporting.  We also have the fact that Harris is still likely trying to find his feet as an independent creator  following Vox’s cancellation of Borders and, on top of this, has found himself in the strange  position of being somewhere in between an independent journalism and a lifestyle influencer,  both of which come with very different ethical codes.If Harris is sincere in his statements that he will be continuing to act as a  journalist on his personal channel, however, then producing content in partnership with  organisations such as the World Economic Forum should be completely beyond the pale.  This is precisely the kind of institution that we need journalists to be critical of, to ask deep,  probing questions about the intentions and motivations of, not to serve as mouth-pieces for.I want to close out this video by acknowledging that the vast majority of contemporary journalism  relies on some form of advertising revenue. In the case of solely online outlets or independent  journalists, it might be the only revenue stream. That’s unlikely to change in the near future.  But, again, the distinction lies in who has control over the content of the journalism itself.I think the prospect of a greater amount of proper, professional, independent journalism on  YouTube and elsewhere on the web is really exciting. It has the potential to allow  new voices to circumvent the rigid hierarchies and biases of legacy media and to provide new  perspectives on current affairs. Yet, as we’ve seen, the manner in which such  independent online journalism is likely to see it come into contact with the so-called  “influencer economy” also leaves it open to distortion by bad actors.There are already several groups who use YouTube and other social media platforms as vectors of  misinformation. Whole channels, such as Prager U, funded by billionaires who want to encourage us to  see the world in a certain way, exist to this end. Yet, there’s also been a rise in advocacy  organisations and national governments working with creators with pre-existing platforms to help  push their agendas. Last month, The Times (the UK one) published an article about how the Chinese  government is using British YouTubers to spread pro-China propaganda for the benefit of both a  domestic and international audience. Last year, the conservative Canadian YouTuber J.J. McCullough  also reported having been approached by someone with at least some connection to the Chinese  government asking him to post a ready-made piece of pro-China propaganda to his channel.The prospect of this kind of brand deal-style propagandising coming into contact with those  who present themselves as independent, impartial journalists, as in the case of Johnny Harris  and the World Economic Forum, is particularly worrying. While Harris did at least acknowledge  the partnership at the very end of his video, I think we need to resist this kind of deal becoming  a norm. For, else we risk finding ourselves in a scenario when all the potential for independent  journalism on platforms such as YouTube is lost in a sea of paid-for misinformation which looks  like journalism on the surface but, in reality, is little more than propaganda.