Tom Nicholas' video discusses journalistic integrity and specifically calls out Johnny Harris' video "How China Became So Powerful" being sponsored by the World Economic Forum despite not making that clear anywhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw-FLc7Z01Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dum0bqWfiGw

Johnny first responded in a shitty comment saying "Ooh fun, a conspiracy theory about me!"

He's now made another comment to clarify:

"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."

Nicholas' responds with:

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?

And finally Johnny Harris responds with:

@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.