Just read what you wrote Dowie. People don't describe things they're not familiar with like that. I'm sorry, but you're full of ****.
You really are upset by this, honestly not everyone has heard of this guy, I don't know why that has offended you so much.
I watched the first 40 seconds as I've already said and it was pretty dire:
"A Judge has ordered a special prosecutor in the Jussie Smolett case. (I think he means 'appointed' or 'ordered a special prosecutor appointed') It is not over. Apparently there was a mishandling of how the prosecution was supposed to go. Quick rehash for those who missed the story because it was the biggest story maybe you live under a rock. (that sentence is getting a bit Trump-esq ) Jussie Smolett was accused of staging a hoax hate crime against himself and boy did it go downhill from there. Eventually he's kicked off his show, his show's getting cancelled but strangely, after 16 felony indictments the charges were dismissed.They called it an alternative, you know, er er dismissal or something like that but in reality it seems like a conflict of interest meant to protect the elites..."
And that's about where I gave up... you can keep your "award winning journalist" thanks
Since then someone has pointed out that he's won awards for live streaming/using a drone etc..etc.. well that's great, it doesn't change the fact that his delivery there was appalling and it seemed like it would be pretty dire to listen to the rest of it. I'm hardly alone in that view either:
My God, he's an insufferable asshat of the highest order. Thanks for the Reuters link.
Maybe if he does something interesting with a drone again then I'll pay attention, otherwise I'll stick with the previous view.
I should point out that a good argument against my view would have been to highlight something new, insightful that he's put in that video that hasn't been covered in news articles... instead I've got replies/arguments of "but but he's a well respected journalist" and general upset at referring to him as some youtuber/objections over the fact that I've not heard of him. My objection was towards the content I'd seen and rather tellingly no one has produced any counter to that so I'll assume the other 16 minutes or so were, as suspected, of little value added relative to the various articles out there. I'm more than happy to adjust my view on that but telling me that he's won praise in the past or that I should have heard of him isn't a good argument, it is irrelevant to what I've said.