Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES82FWeOnU4&start=422

I'm not going to be one bit surprised if he "accidentally" falls out a 45th story window.

Ben is the journalist we need. He needs bodyguards.

He's not called Reckless for nothing 😜

He truly is. Mad respect.

Calling this guy a journalist is insane.

Yeah giving big Mr Beast vibes. I've watched both this and the follow up and the super annoying tone real puts me off. Is this a true story? Maybe, but when you're showing the supposedly incriminating documents on screen for a half second, and jump cutting to the whistle blower throwing them up in the air. It doesn't scream credibility. Everyone in this video is super annoying as well.

Theres other people taking down massive corporations and pedophile rings? Where?

Yeah his content can be cringe but the dude is fricken brave.

Brave doesn't mean journalist. His videos lack zero informational content. All he does is broadcast feelings with bits of poorly presented (or even misrepresented) facts and muddies the waters of everything he gets involved in.

Also, getting involved in things is like the antithesis of journalism.

I like the video, but I do kind of agree with you.

He does give a lot of "layman with a camera" energy. I should note that I don't in any way think that's a bad thing; just not a journalist, per se.

For contrast, I now consider Andrew Callahan of Channel 5/All Gas no Brakes fame to now be a proper journalist, but I didn't really see him as one when he was first starting out.

Legitimacy in this space is something (I think is) earned through experience and - to a certain degree - demeanor, which takes time to develop.

Lmfao fucking religious cult raping children

Here is the actual documentary with the whistle blowers

https://youtu.be/CHID7-wdowU?is=IVT7VO1nxErVRJVk

Agreed. I came out of watching this thinking "what is this brain-rot?" I felt like I just watched trash. I don't feel like the tone does the case any service. The connections they draw seem unsubstantiated and anecdotal at best. The case comes off as if it's built on speculation and it seems like they state claims as factual without meeting any convincing burden of proof. Supporting the case with more anecdotal accounts doesn't really save it.