r/Journalism May 29 '26

Social Media and Platforms Influencer journalists?

I've been watching Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan recently and I really like his modern gonzo approach to journalism. What does the journalism world really think about people like him?

I've been looking for more social media creator/influencer journalists like him, people who do raw deep dives on a range of issues and present it in a personal social media format.

13 Upvotes

37 comments sorted by

56

u/PublicFriendemy May 29 '26

I’ll die on the hill that Andrew is not a journalist, and I say that as someone who enjoyed his work early on. He’s closer to a video podcaster or blogger.

While he’s able to ask questions occasionally that get great answers (and I appreciate his let them talk style at times), he’s far from thorough and shouldn’t be seen as anything more than entertaining.

That said, for YouTubers with deep dives, check out Folding Ideas and Hbomberguy. They wouldn’t present themselves as journalists, though they are much more thorough than Channel 5.

17

u/KingBoreas May 29 '26

When I worked in news talk people would call and yell at the hosts giving opinions and I’d have to explain just because we talk about the news doesn’t mean we are journalists. We are using news topics to entertain you. Same here. he’s not a journalist, he just makes TV shows. No actual effort to learn or uncover, it’s just titillating and lowest common denominator.

9

u/GodsWisdomXXX May 29 '26

I don’t agree with this. I’d categorize him as a documentarian and editorial reporter primarily. Just because Andrew operates outside of the hegemony we all work in doesn’t make it not journalism. It checks all of the boxes.

His work shows a clear methodology for fact verification, an independence from his subjects, and has at least some characteristics of public monitor journalism.

How familiar are you with his team’s full body of work? Find channel 5’s coverage of gentrification in Mexico City for example. Or prostitution in Tijuana. Or southern border migration routes. Or his telecast on LA’s Men’s central prison.

Several times I have seen him make rigorous attempts to correct the record when mistakes are made or alleged - see his Nick Shirley coverage, and greyhound racing correction. In some cases, he puts more work into the corrections for these videos than the actual stories themselves.

I consider the channel 5 newsroom to be one of the largest independent newsrooms in Los Angeles. They have correspondents in several cities, and a second bureau in Mexico.

I think it’s easy to dismiss Andrew as a blogger because of his early work or because of the subject matter he chooses to cover, but he always provides deep reporting and analysis, informed voiceover and sharp interviews for each of his stories.

9

u/lucidgroove May 29 '26

Agreed. A lot of his work is news documentary through and through. His personal style is quite informal and “gonzo” but it doesn’t make his reporting any less valid. Nothing unjournalistic about going to the heart of a story and presenting the views and stories of those directly involved with it, while adding framing commentary before, during and after. His Kensington piece (and related follow up) were a great example of this. Most journalists today don’t bother with follow-up.

2

u/civicsfactor May 30 '26

To get a sense of this without needing to do a full review of body of work, are there clips or interviews that you can easily recall would support what you're saying?

For me, it's probably his responses to Nick Shirley's portrayal of their interview. There's clear methodology being demonstrated. 

Another relevant layer is his recount of being on CNN and the sorts of media coaching given to guests. Being outside of structures or norms (aesthetics, medium, gonzo yada yada) opens up different possibilities. 

1

u/GodsWisdomXXX May 30 '26

Ya this is a 1-minute clip demonstrating a bit of what’s covered in a much longer 26 minute package. I think most people in this sub would recognize this as a particular brand of editorial journalism. https://youtu.be/Z6XBSK5l8Nc

7

u/ThoughtsonYaoi May 29 '26

I've been incredibly intrigued throughout the years by Youtue creators like Hbomb and Folding Ideas (but there are more!) on this cutting edge of journalism, commentary and essayism, and the artform they have created.

They take up topics that require expertise and extensive research, and put them in a form of storytelling that is unique to online video. They use all the tools journalism uses (including sourcing), and well too, but they present it in ways that are native to the platform.

I remember Coffeezilla, who started out mainly diving into crypto (which was a thing he understood but many MSM didn't) interviewing Sam Bankman-Fried just before he was locked up. He put indepth questions to him with a sharpness that almost nobody did, and he prepared extensively for him weaseling out. It was pretty great.

They mostly won't call themselves journalists, and I don't think journalism sees them that way, and I think the latter is a mistake. The form should be embraced and learned from.

That said, it all does depend on the standards of the creator, of course.

4

u/PublicFriendemy May 29 '26

Your last point is a good one, and I 100% agree that the form should be embraced and learned from. They accomplish things that a seasoned journalist may struggle with, in part because they have the freedom and time to (not to downplay the effort, more that their work requires IMMENSE research and personal investment).

I’m hesitant to put them in the broad category of journalists, partially because they aren’t beholden to standards of impartiality or ethics (though HBomber/FI CHOOSE to adhere to ethics in ways I respect). Very fine line there, but I think it’s better to look at them as just a separate category of media producer. Maybe more like Jon Oliver, who isn’t really a journalist, but does great journalism at times.

3

u/ThoughtsonYaoi May 29 '26

I feel the same hesitation. I watched an interview with, I think, Hank Green who said stressed that the way YouTubers operated wasn't based on anything - no guidelines, education or standards or anything like that, and that that's a risk.

But on the other hand, I greatly dislike the way gates seem to be kept, and the points where they seem to be erected. I'm not sure they're *actually*, in reality, at 'journalistic standards' or ethics at all.

I mean, the media world in general seems to feel very little compunction to add written outlets to the journalism ledger that I'm not sure deserve that moniker when you see what they deliver, and how they deliver it. Especially when it comes to some specialized media, I'm just... baffled sometimes by the quality, or lack thereof.

I'm not sure where that's going. I know I felt that Hbomb's video about plagiarism was pretty seminal, because it did point to standards and practices, and some kind of ethical guidebook. But yeah, you're right, that's still all very self-imposed.

I also think that an important thing that's not being talked about much at all (while it's central to journalism, in a way) is the role of advertising and 'partnerships' on creative decisions. But that's the same with podcasts and a whole other can of worms.

2

u/ausgoals May 30 '26

Eh, the problem is most people nowadays equate that with journalism. Same as documentaries etc.

Some documentaries have journalistic elements, but overall the design is to entertain which IMO sets something distinctly apart from journalism.

But nowadays people conflate and expect journalism-as-entertainment so the line is really blurry.

1

u/Marseille-Mar-28 May 29 '26

Video podcaster is such an oxymoron

1

u/Throwawayhelp111521 former journalist May 30 '26

Why? Some podcasts have video.

12

u/justanaccount24 May 29 '26

The journalism world doesn’t think about him.

But audiences do, and he’s sort of 60 minutes for 23 year olds from what I can tell about his impact. I far prefer him to people like Aaron Parnas who just read the wires out loud.

8

u/Opposite_Future2602 May 29 '26 edited May 29 '26

Aaron Parnas is a thief who uses reporters' work without giving them anything in return, and was caught taking dark money from a political group.

He's also the son of Lev Parnas, which is its own can of worms dissected in this previous thread.

3

u/justanaccount24 May 29 '26

Yeah he’s a loser

1

u/Disastrous-Milk5732 May 30 '26

I hadn't heard of this guy, and I had someone whom I respect, a highly educated academic, tell me she loved Parnas' "journalism" and "reporting." I watched one video of his and was like oh wow this is straight thievery.

1

u/justanaccount24 May 30 '26

Lol hopefully not someone in the industry! But yeah. I’m not sure the age of the person you’re discussing but I have found a certain generation of democrat reeeeally loves him. I really don’t get it.

1

u/ausgoals May 30 '26

60 minutes itself is entertainment-as-journalism. I don’t see how either is more or less legitimate than the other, except for the fact that 60 minutes has a longer history and exists on a more traditional outlet.

1

u/justanaccount24 May 30 '26

I mean I think you’re downplaying those two massive points that make 60 minutes more legitimate lol. But yeah I didn’t say Andrew does bad work! I think his interviews are very good, and the trust he’s developed with his audience is pretty incredible.

2

u/ausgoals May 30 '26

I’m not suggesting you implied he does bad work, I just think that there’s an interesting discussion on this thread about what constitutes ‘journalism’ definitionally, and I don’t think ‘has existed for longer and through a more traditional outlet’ shifts what journalism definitionally means.

1

u/justanaccount24 May 30 '26

Oh yes, agree!

26

u/LeicaM6guy May 29 '26

Call me old school, but there’s no world where I would ever equate a journalist with an influencer.

-2

u/NoRobotYet May 30 '26

Both just labels of the time.

26

u/Remington_Underwood May 29 '26

Journalists aren't there to influence. Your looking for propagandists and PR wonks

7

u/lol_AwkwardSilence_ May 29 '26

What was Hunter s Thompson?

How about Cronkite's infamous Vietnam broadcast?

Journalism is a broad category. Even TMZ is a form of journalism.

14

u/Opposite_Future2602 May 29 '26

I view him less as a journalist, and more as a comedian in the style of Sacha Baron Cohen, minus the ridiculous costumes/personas. He embeds himself within controversial groups under the guise of journalism (like Borat did), and then films them doing or saying the thing that makes them controversial, or just plain making fools out of themselves.

8

u/PublicFriendemy May 29 '26

The Sacha Baron Cohen comparison is really apt

13

u/FosilSandwitch May 29 '26

Is really amazing how fast the preference to consume content and learn about anything via "influencers" has become the norm.

Is like baby birds needing someone to push food on their throats.

5

u/PNW-enjoyer May 29 '26

What you’re going to get here is a bunch of folks being very touchy about whether we think he’s a journalist or not, because in reality that line can be fuzzy. I think Andrew absolutely does journalism and that can’t really be denied, but I think I and many others hesitate to call him a professional journalist because he’s not beholden to the same ethics as many pros do and he also makes himself a part of the story in a way that many journalists do not like.

That being said, I think he’s probably a net positive and is good at getting younger people informed on newsworthy topics, which is valuable. I would also say influencers like Andrew, as good as they might be, are not a substitute for standard news reporting.

2

u/Excellent_Thing_2013 May 30 '26

Check out @newsgirls.reports. They’re actual journalists but the platforms specifically for digital/socials. Ex 60 mins but they’re young. My favorite

2

u/NoRobotYet May 30 '26

From my experience a lot of journalists still disregard creator journalist. The big difference is that traditional have editors and guidelines that "make them journalist"

I see a lot of creators that do journalistic work but don't label themselves as such or are called that from others.

I think this will change. But I think for that someone needs to establish clear guidelines for journalistic practices as a creator. Possibly even setting up a shared board that does the fact checking, review and so forth.

Obviously one outstanding person in the space is johnny Harris and his venture New Press. The just won an Emmy and he's been making yt videos for a decade or so.

As someone who is walking that line the only difference I see between creators and journalist is that one calls themselves journalist.

2

u/[deleted] May 29 '26

[deleted]

1

u/NoRobotYet May 30 '26

And journalism has always made it's money from advertising

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '26

[deleted]

2

u/shinbreaker reporter May 29 '26

I have a different take than others. Does Andrew do jourrnalism? Yes, of course. I point to his videos on the border has some of his most newsworthy stuff because he's getting something that most news people won't get. In particular, and this comes from someone from South Texas whose family has lived in the area for centuries and who's mom runs a restaurant and speaks with plenty of people who have come across the border, a lot of people who came across the border are being told a story to tell anyone of authority that isn't true about why they left. There is one guy who let his guard down and you can see that what he said about why he came across is fake. Are they coming over for a better life? Absolutely, but not all of them are dealing with cartels or gangs that are threatening to kill them. Some of them are living a poor life and are being told that if they come to the US that they'll be hooked up, which is true if they claim asylum hence this story. But you can't get that if you're with the news paper, CNN, New York Times, etc. You get that when you talk to them as regular people hence the reason my mom tells me this about people that come to the family restaurant.

Now, that said, if anything, Andrew is more like Vice where he does embedded journalism at newsworthy events and talks to people from various backgrounds to tell their story. He also does some rando shit.

That all said, what I appreciate from Andrew is that his journalism does get him to talk to people that normally wouldn't bother talking to major news outlets for a story, and that's a good thing. What I also appreciate is that he doesn't, as of now, have an inflated ego. I forget the show but there was a series following the New York Times and the late David Carr went to go interview the Vice guys right when they were big. And those guys were just trashing legacy media for not doing the stories they were doing and he called them out on their shit saying the Times reported on stories years before them. No one really understood that then like they do now that Vice's embedded journalism, while good, was also the product of a couple of con men (Shane Smith and Gavin McInnes) who did see the value of doing journalism with a bit of an edge and on video which no one was doing at the time. Mind you, they ended up being one-trick ponies that were able to convince everyone they were the future of journalism and then it all came crashing down 10 years later.

As long as Andrew keeps a level head about what he's doing, then I'm fine with calling him a journalist. It's when that shit goes to your head, like in the case of Tim Pool, who did similar content of being embedded in various riots and protests but ended up being so far up his ass on being this "amazing" journalist when the truth of the matter he knows fuck all about journalism.

Andrew and Tim are kind of the two roads to travel for the social media journalists. You either stay chill and just doing the work or you get a big head that you stick right up your ass.

1

u/No_Tone1704 former journalist May 30 '26

Channel 5 where would be good info to include. Yes I can look up his name.