7 ms·

Johnny Harris has a pretty decent video on the topic as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsO-rULEfrk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsO-rULEfrk

• nakedrobot2 5mo ago
  Johnny Harris is astoundingly wrong about most things, so I'll skip it thanks
  • samschooler 5mo ago
    Do you have a reputable sources to back up your claims here? Johnny cites sources pretty consistently.
    • michaelt 5mo ago
      https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-health-and-nutrition/many-mistakes-johnny-harris https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking-health-a... > The quick cuts and dazzling montages, as well as the dramatic shots of Harris absorbed by a document he’s unearthed, highlighting it suspensefully in tight close-ups, all lend credence to the often-excellent work he does. But it also makes it easy to mask his mistakes. And for someone who takes journalism to heart, his mistakes are big, leading to oversimplification and an occasional lapse in skepticism. [...] > In a video that garnered 8.5 million views and which Harris thumbnailed with the words “WE HAVE PROOF,” Harris explores the recent craze over UFO sightings—sorry, UAP sightings, meaning unexplained anomalous phenomena. In passing, he mentions Mick West, who has done excellent work debunking a lot of blurry footage of what is alleged to be high-tech spy drones or aliens. > But the bulk of the video is spent leering at report after report—a total of 144 are being investigated by the U.S. government right now!—while original music amps up the mystery. The emphasis on evidence over context is key to Harris’ style: flood the space with visuals that keep your attention and elicit questions and only occasionally pull back to explain.
      • samschooler 5mo ago
        Thanks! I think he's better than a lot of opinion creators, but does make me look at his videos with more skepticism.
  • sgarland 5mo ago
    Years ago I had found his channel and liked it, and then some video (I don’t remember the title or even subject at this time) came up on a subject I happened to know quite a bit about. He got to some point in an explanation, bungled it, and then hand-waved it away, saying the details were unimportant. Stopped caring about anything he had to say after that, and I also then realized that there was a an entire genre of “person with no actual expertise reads Wikipedia articles and explains them with good lighting and high production quality.”
    • eddythompson80 5mo ago
      Same. It was the "How The U.S. Ruined Bread" video for me after which I started watching critically and found the editing style to be over the top and makes it harder to think about the content while it's being presented. So I eventually stopped watching.
      • JumpCrisscross 5mo ago
        Interesting. I had a similar experience with Veritasium’s video on kinetic bombardment, where I think they dismissed the concept based on tossing bowling balls out of helicopters onto sandcastles.
    • bfivyvysj 5mo ago
      Try Sarah Pain for middle/eastern history.
    • wallst07 5mo ago
      And you'll see the exact same thing here on HN. Comments here should be read as opinions, not as facts. I see it every time there is a subject I know deeply about, 90%+ of the comments are either factually incorrect or just bad opinions.
  • dataflow 5mo ago
    Most things? That's a really strong claim, do you have anything to back it up with? Just a couple videos here and there wouldn't cut it, given how strong your claim is. For what it's worth I watch his videos and he seems to touch on incredibly valuable topics I would never hear about otherwise, like [1]. [1] https://youtu.be/2tuS1LLOcsI?si=b3mS0meBazL0RlcS https://youtu.be/2tuS1LLOcsI?si=b3mS0meBazL0RlcS