Psychedelia-informed independent journalist interviews right wing Youtuber
I have been watching Andrew Callaghan's content for a while now. He's a journalist. He makes his living reporting on major stories, conducting interviews and posting those interviews on social media platforms. The Callaghan perspective is one distrustful of institutions and interested in hearing about people's problems, theories and narrative of the world. I've seen him talk to flat earth believers, gangsters, drunk people on New Orleans' Bourbon Street and also Hunter Biden. He records what people have to say, listens and then asks questions and usually tells a little about what he thinks. The company he owns publishes as Channel 5 on YouTube. If there are street protests happening, this channel often covers it. They have many different contributing voices, including a guy whose shtick is wearing a balaclava while he interviews people.
Nick Shirley is a YouTuber who has recently gone viral on politically right leaning platforms for his coverage (he refers to himself as an independent journalist) of daycare centers in Minnesota and alleged financial fraud. My estimation is that this is someone who is trying to publish videos that people will watch, and calling him a journalist is debatable. One criteria for journalist is: do they call themself a journalist? Do they interview people, report stories and check what they are reporting is true in their estimation? And the answer is yes, but here 'in their estimation' is doing a lot of work. I do not trust the judgement of Nick Shirley in estimating the veracity of claims, particularly when political questions or race are involved.
I say this having heard of this person for the first time earlier this evening. If you are curious about why I hold this view, here is a link to a video. https://youtu.be/_IrMqA3fVO0?si=B6dn9HbJgyLHGmLj
In this interview I see a journalist interviewing an influencer. A somewhat sheltered influencer, as evidenced by their views, and how they structure an argument. But one that is thrust in the national spotlight. I see them getting along, which is not surprising. I assume when Callaghan does not get along with an interview subject, he does not publish an interview.
It's important for me to note that I have a much higher bar when it comes to accepting claims of fraud than the space the subject of this interview has cleared with their claims. If there is fraud, where is the evidence of this?
This claim of fraud is the reason this personality is relevant at all in this moment. His channel and content has been signal boosted by billionaires and Republican officials at a time when the administration would really love to be talking about something other than Jeffrey Epstein.
Something I appreciate about Channel 5 is that Andrew Callaghan purposefully does not challenge his subjects much. He tells people they are wrong when he hears something that he disagrees with, but he always seems to bring the conversation back to a point of agreement and shared understanding. He wants people to talk about what they believe, how they view the world, what they fear and what they want.
This isn't a necessary part of conducting interviews. One does not need to do this to be a journalist either. But to create what he wants to create (independent media) he needs to hear people out. And the people that he interviews often would not be interviewed by a mainstream outlet.
There is a consideration to be had here, which is that of edge cases. Do you hear people out when their views are inflammatory, or bad in any number of ways? The simplest way to frame this consideration is to pick a known viewpoint that people tend to agree is bad. A cannibal. Do you hear a cannibal out? Publish their views? The thing is that everyone has different criteria to sort the bad viewpoints out. And if you platform a viewpoint that is evil to a viewer, you risk losing the viewer. Also, if you publish hate speech of a particular group and someone takes action against that group after hearing your story, did you play a role in that action? Also how does your coverage contribute to the shared reality that people have of the world. What shared reality do you want people to have of the world? Is that idea of a shared reality relevant to what stories you cover? Or do you pretend that your coverage is objective and unbiased, untainted by such considerations?
If you interview someone on the street and discover they are a Nazi, do you publish their viewpoint? Or even factor it in to your story? How about someone undergoing mania? How about the political views of a child? A murderer? A prospective secret policeman?
For many of the edge cases one could identify, Callaghan would interview the subject. I can't say whether he would publish what would be produced for any of these edge cases, but what I see is someone who wants to understand how others see the world, even if they seem unusual. I think many journalistic institutions and various media organizations do not hear undesirables out, choosing to omit their perspective from the conversation.
I will say that interviewing drunk people seems unethical, so there is that. The first video I saw of Callaghan's was on filmed on Bourbon Street. Now this journalist has moved on from that (consider that taking down drunken words, especially those of a public figure, is something that has been done by many journalists over the years).
There's a bright future in journalism for Callaghan. I don't see a bright future in journalism for Shirley. If Shirley wants to become a good journalist, I would focus on fact checking, interviewing experts and not just relying on anecdotes to build your world view. And just being a little less persuadable. If someone tells you something, keep in mind that they might be wrong, lying or imprecise. If you parrot their views, that makes you wrong, lying or imprecise. Journalists do not tend to stay journalists if they are proven to lie in public or in writing.
 White.png)
