Why would either have to explicitly tell us that? And not saying it is not a lie of omission either. It's being recorded right smack in the middle of Apple's cafeteria where video recording is otherwise not allowed. It goes without saying that they had permission to make and post the vlog. To what extend Apple played a role it it's production we don't know, but nothing nefarious is going on. Really not a stretch to make that inference Apple isn't blind to the recording here.
Moreover the video she posted is not as a journalist, but as a teen with a vlog. I don't see how anyone could take it as a serious journalistic effort. There is nothing in the vlog that constitutes the serious review and unbiased testing effort that we will soon see on the pages of WSJ, NYT, The Verge, USA Today, and other typical Apple anointed first line review outlet. She didn't even get possession of the phone for any length of time as a journalist would have -- and off site. She played with a few screens in front of her dad. Her dad showed off an animoji on the video -- surrounded by colleagues and probably Apple security too.
Are you suggesting anything on YouTube by a teenager should be considered journalism? Because if you do then I see where our thinking separates. This is a puff piece, i.e., marketing wrapped, in an amateur video wrapper with the hope it would get attention and even go viral. For anyone to explicitly say they had Apple's imprimatur on this ruins that effect. But anyone using common sense also understands Apple's (and corporate in general) secrecy and accepts the premise here and don't take it literally.
