With that salutation he's not advocating an exposition of this information but taking part in a political movement.
Or loose, attempted political movement, tendency, intellectual school.
That's true regardless of what he may think he is doing.
That doesn't invalidate any given info, but
a. should be seen, and serve to contextualize him, and (for me) puts him on default mistrust (watch away anyway, that's not my point),
b. will make me and many others like me allergic, involuntarily (but foreseeably), possibly causing me to miss some important info, but also suggesting it's not made for general audience but for his likeminded audience and fellow travellers, and also suggesting he doesn't care if I see it, and
c. should raise expectations, to those of us who've watched a lot of the media associated with this loose movement, of the generically sloppy standards applied by such media, the obsessions through which such media frames the world and is willing to distort it, the predetermined but never quite-stated conclusions, the hidden ideological up-sells and intimations and inflated promises of truth, possibly the usual irresolution in which unanswerable questions are left open as bait for future revelations that may bring us perpetually closer to discovery (but won't, keep watching, hit subscribe, here's my Patreon).
Those are generic expectations that tend to get confirmed, not always and not all. Is any of this untrue in the execution of this one? Do you see why the associations kind of follow naturally?
But I am curious and love reading cultural artifacts in their messages, subtexts, juxtapositions, unintended baggage, larger contexts, etc. So I am asking you, seriously, to tell me, in your own short or medium form as your own time and inclination permit: What do you see in this George mag cover?
ALSO
FIXED typo (Anoymous) in thread title, unless it was intentional?
.
