The Parnas Problem: Defining Journalism In The Digital Age

There is a difference between content creation and journalism. There is also a debate raging over which category, Aaron Parnas belongs to.

Photo by Roman Kraft on Unsplash

Recently, Substack announced a contest which aimed to migrate people from TikTok to Substack, as the ban on TikTok loomed. Several writers began incorporating Substack into their TikTok videos for a chance at a $25,000 prize and a year-long stint as a Creative Advisor for the app. A week later, they announced the winner; Aaron Parnas. This was immediately met with mixed reviews on the site. Parnas is no stranger to controversy. TikTok is full of videos from users expressing their disdain and leveling some pretty serious accusations over him and his content.

There have been concerns over his background, the use of information without citing sources, calls of outright plagiarism, and his use of a method that echos a political tool, known as the Shock Doctrine.

While it is easy to attribute the naysayers of a creator, who calls himself an ‘independent journalist’, as jealousy, there is something to be said about the criticisms. It raises the fundamental question of not only how we define journalism, but also who has the right to call themselves a journalist in the digital age.

Aaron Parnas is undeniably a smart man. At only twenty-six years old, he already boasts a long list of accomplishments. He began college at fourteen, and by age eighteen had graduated with a B.A. in Political Science and Criminal Justice from Florida Atlantic University. He would go on to graduate with honors from George Washington University of Law.

But, no one has ever accused him of not being intelligent. In fact, to many that is what makes the criticism more valid and his content more questionable.

His father, Lev Parnas, was a Trump campaign operative and long time Rudy Giuliani associate, (Aaron worked for Giuliani’s law firm before graduating law school) who found himself in prison for his role in Donald Trump’s 2020 bid for re-election. The older Parnas had been sent to Ukraine, on behalf of Trump, in order to dig up enough dirt on the Biden family to sink Joe Biden’s chance at the presidency. He was sentenced to 20 months in prison in 2021, on campaign finance charges. While I am often hard pressed to condemn someone for the sins of their father, it should be noted that both father and son have used the events of that campaign, and their proximity to Donald Trump, for their own financial advantage.

Aaron Parnas was a staunch Trump supporter, until the events involving his father unfolded. It is a tale he tells himself. In fact, in 2020 he authored a book, TRUMP FIRST: How the President and his associates turned their backs on me and my family, on the events that transpired. When Aaron tells us things like he “isn’t afraid of Donald Trump”, one has to wonder how much of it is personal versus a fundamental change in ideology. Particularly, when you consider the rate at which he went from Tumper to Democratic digital strategist.

It should go without saying that all social media is curated. This is particularly true when you are in the realm of influencer which Parnas has risen to. On TikTok he has amassed a following of 2.5 million users. His Subtack newsletter, Parnas Perspective currently has over 171,000 subscribers. It is hard to believe that he does not know what he is doing by employing the language he does in nearly every video or post on the platforms.

In 2007, Naomi Kilne, Canadian author, social activist and filmmaker, authored the book Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. The Shock Doctrine theory is simple; it is the strategy political actors use to exploit chaos, using the disorientation of the public for material gain, to push an unpopular agenda, or to desensitize a populace. If one was to scroll through Aaron Parnas’ Tiktok, you would see a theme. Every single video begins the same way “We have breaking news” or “Terrible news coming from”. While it may be unclear what his actual objective is for this, two things are certain. These tactics aren’t merely hooks to catch the attention of someone who may be scrolling social media, but rather, it is an intentional practice, meant to relay every piece of news as a calamity using the principle of Shock Doctrine. It has also paid well for Mr. Parnas.

The most common criticism of his work, however, is that of plagiarism, and the fact that he doesn’t actually do any of his own research, as a “real journalist” would.

Whether or not there is an underlying nefarious agenda, his work has raised an interesting question on what it means to be a real, independent journalist, and if the nature of his work is actually doing a disservice to the industry as a whole.

Personally, I have a hard time seeing him as a journalist. If I had to create a label, or a category into which he falls, I would say he is more of a curator or aggregator of the news. He offers nothing created from his own work. He solely relays headlines that anyone with a smartphone could find on the Associated Press website, or CNN ticker.

To be honest, there has always been a market for that. One could make the argument that this is no different than a nightly news show featuring talking heads who go over the day’s headlines. Yet, it is different.

It is rare that you find a talking head, employing the Shock Doctrine theory, seemingly, every hour on the hour throughout the day…every day. It is also rare that someone hosting a daily news roundup does not cite their sources every single time for every story.

Citing of sources should be the golden rule when it comes to sharing someone else's work. For most larger national or international stories, individual reporters are not sourcing the news themselves. Instead, it comes down the wire from sources like Reuters or the Associated Press for use and distribution through various channels. This is the reason that you often see “AP-” or “Reuters-” before an article begins in print media, or hear a local television reporter stating “The Associated Press is reporting today that…”. Reviewing Aaron Parnas’s content, you will see that he rarely cites where he is getting these “breaking news” stories from.

Instead, letting viewers believe that he is the one breaking the story. If we didn’t know of his connections, this may not be as much of an issue. Still, there are multiple videos on his TikTok where he speaks on being in rooms most of us (including many big name journalists) would never have access to, and referencing both his and his father’s connections in the political sphere. It is not a far stretch of the imagination that he would be gathering this information from those connections, as a real journalist might. Regularly citing his sources would help to refute any conclusions that could be or have been drawn by viewers.

There is also a failure to put his own spin on the news. Journalists will often take an Associated Press story, for example, and they will offer context, connect the story to local events, or offer a deep analysis of why the news they are reporting matters. Parnas does none of this.

He reads every headline, verbatim, rarely offering more to his followers. It is easy to see how the plagiarism accusation carries weight. It is also easy to see why so many independent journalists have raised concerns, levied criticisms and were deeply unhappy with Substack’s celebration of him after they crowned him the contest winner.

The bigger concern, I believe, is defining the ethics that surround reporting of news in the digital landscape. There is an argument to be made that delivering the headlines in a way that is meant to elicit an immediate emotional response, is, in fact, more dangerous than it is informative. When a video is made that has “breaking news” or “terrible news” and only one sentence following it, devoid of context, it is very easy for those who may not be well informed to create knee jerk reactions that are, quite frankly, not rooted in the facts. This in turn, causes more videos to be made by those believing they have a credible, journalistic source. Those videos have the same result. Suddenly, you find yourself surrounded with disinformation and speculation.

Perhaps, this is not the intent. But, it is the inevitable outcome. One does have to assume that someone with the resume of Mr. Parnas knows this, not solely because of his academic record, but also his work with both the Republican and Democratic parties. We must ask ourselves; How much responsibility does the original video and its creator bear? Is it ethical? Is it objective?

More importantly, is it journalism?

Journalism, at its core, is not simply giving the news. There is a strong social responsibility that comes with the profession.

It is the question of the extent to which he adheres to this social responsibility, along with the underlying financial motives, that independent journalists are critiquing.

As I said earlier, there is a market for rapid fire, headlines only, news. There always has been and the concept alone should not be offensive. We are all busy people, and sometimes this method of delivery is a quick and easy way to stay up to date on current events. However, when criticism is raised and his fans come into comment sections defending him with a rabid fervor, there are always a few who claim this is the only news they consume and he is the only “journalist” they follow. This should raise a red flag for everyone. Rapid fire headlines were not meant to be the sole source of information. Repeating them does not inherently make it journalism.

Quick headline news shouldn’t be controversial in theory.

It becomes controversial when someone with a potential personal vendetta employs Shock Doctrine like tactics, to become personally and financially enriched, all while calling it journalism or referring to themselves as an ‘independent journalist’.

As Aaron Parnas rises in internet fame and garners more and more supporters, this conversation will continue to be had. Regardless of where you fall in this debate, it is an important one.

The internet is full of people doing the exact same thing, and hoping for the same results by employing the same tactics.

There is also a long list of independent journalists who take the ethical tenets and the objectivity that is required seriously. It isn’t that they don’t employ phrases like “breaking news”. Rather they use them sparingly; reserving it for cases where the news is of mass importance and the quick timing of the information is crucial. All news matters. Not all news is urgent.

It is important that we call things for what they are. Names and titles of things are important.

It is time we define what it means to be a journalist rather than a content creator or curator. Those two classifications are not synonymous. Nor, should they be shifted in the public lexicon to become so.

This Brave New World is a reader-supported publication.

Please consider becoming a subscriber, or upgrading to a paid member.

If you don’t like commitment, but would like to support my work, please consider buying me a coffee. Your support is always greatly appreciated.

As always, thank you for reading! — Courtney