You are being inconsistent in your expressions here. This makes this conversation a matter of guesswork.
Will you take seriously, the evidence that the video creator has a long history of bad faith? If so, why keep trying to advance his video? If not, then that is where this discussion is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDWWDyckVxk
This hit the news a few weeks ago. Nick's coverage is a specific branch that has not been covered yet.
I also asked you early on in our discussion which journalist you would trust, and you did not answer. I like Nick Shirley, and I don't think he does bad faith reporting. If that sentence makes you want to leave the conversation, then congrats, just another leftist that does not want to engage on the arguments. I answered your question, now you answer mine.
This seems to be where we're at then. Is your position that the specifics of Shirley's activities (reported by Reuters) are
1) things that did happen or
2) things that didn't happen?
I'm not big on gotchas btw. I'm obvious with my intent because it's productive.
Disclosure that I am a recovering conservative.
Anyone at Techdirt. Joseph Cox and likely anyone at 404 Media. April Glaser, Marcy Wheeler, Elizabeth Nolan Brown (mostly editor now). Others (not coming to mind atm).
It's an episode where This American Life got it wrong; they aired a story that wasn't truthful as delivered.
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/460/retraction
This episode details what happened when factual errors were brought to their attention. It's what good-faith journalists do and I think you'll recognize that.
Going forward:
When a story generates a strong response in you,
I urge you to consider whether the source of that story
can be trusted to perform good faith journalism,
(comparable to what's done in the TAL link above).But a content creator operating in bad faith - all they can do is craft counterproductive, toxic narratives¹.
Before asking others to consume Shirley's content, fully determine that Shirley is acting in good faith. Besides being kind, it's also due diligence.
¹(by cherry picking unrelated facts, by disingenuously tying those facts together, by innuendo, by debunked research and by supporting all of it with other bad faith content)