We’ve all seen them, whether it was a quick snippet on TikTok, or you sat down and watched the entire video, most of us are familiar with Jubilee, a Youtube channel started in 2010 with a philanthropic vibe. If you scroll to videos on Jubilee’s channel from ten years ago you’ll see a very different theme than what the media company produces today. The videos range from hopeful short films or a recap of what Jubilee had accomplished that year. The thumbnails are images of people hugging, or smiling. The color palette is muted and calming, and the titles are simple. Their mission statement claims their goal is to “provoke understanding & create human connection.” Does that seem like the Jubilee videos we see now? Jubilee’s videos are definitely provoking people and connecting people, but in what way and at what cost? With their clickbait titles and problematic labeling of the participants in their videos, Jubilee has transformed into a sensationalism machine in the name of giving a platform for people to discuss the issues. They feign tact and inclusivity when in reality the connection they provoke is bitter, tense, and in reality the worst of the people in their videos. One may argue that the videos Jubilee produces are necessary to get people talking and to have the uncomfortable conversations, but Jubilee does a massive disservice to themselves and their viewers by how they market their product. They preach honest conversations but how honest can these conversations be in a world that only allows extremism to gain attention? Is Jubilee a victim of a society with short attention spans and yearning for something exciting, or are they the perpetrators of divisiveness and cancel culture on the internet?
Back in September, Jubilee released a video entitled “Can 1 Woke Teen Survive 20 Trump Supporters?” What’s wrong with this title, I’d say a lot. Who is this “woke teen,” his name is Dean Withers, and he has been debating political ideologies since around 2022. Withers would invite conservatives to debate with him on TikTok regarding reproductive rights and the LGBTQ+ community. Withers is a skillful orator and an extremely knowledgeable individual who uses fact, common sense and relative politeness to disarm conservatives and their views. So what exactly is “woke” about Withers? Nothing really, in fact the term woke is a weaponized term thrown at individuals who criticize old-fashioned, prejudicial ideologies. It is a way for the old guard of the world to diminish important conversations about how our society progresses away from a world of discrimination and hate to a world of acceptance, tolerance and allyship. So why would Jubilee label Wither’s as a “woke teen” if their goal is to bring people from opposite sides of the spectrum itogether n a supposed safe space to have the difficult conversations? It is because it garners views and because the word “woke” evokes such emotion from people on either side of the issues that they can’t help but watch.
Thoughtful debate requires more nuance than what Jubilee presents in most of its videos. Jubilee’s video series called “Middle Ground” brings together representatives of certain communities to debate statements made by a moderator. As the title suggests, these videos call for ideologically different people to find the middle ground on the issues, but can we say that middle ground is found when the balance of perspectives is off. Jubilee constantly falls into the trap of incorrectly labeling people. By putting people into often extremely inaccurate labels this skews how viewers interpret the perspectives of the participants. For example, in a recent video Jubilee brought together Men’s Rights Activists versus Feminists. Many viewers noted in the comment section that inviting such extreme and problematic participants into the debate discredits the entire debate. One such participant was Hannah Pearl Davis, also known as Pearl, is an internet personality who has been called the “female Andrew Tate.” Pearl has espoused such views as women should not be allowed to vote, and that women’s sole purpose is to get married, and support their husband in extremely archaic ways such as cooking, cleaning, and of course not voting. The fact that Jubilee invited such an obvious sexist to the debate is a prime example of their failure to conduct successful debates. Pearl is not a Men’s Rights Activist (whatever that is), she is a misogynist who holds deeply harmful views about the role of women in society. Furthermore, Pearl’s views once again place the apparent predicament of men on women, instead of considering that all of us operate within a patriarchy that harms both men and women. While those labeled feminists in the debate attempted to bring nuance to the discussion Pearl continuously refuted with nonsensical gibberish about how all women (emphasis on all) make bad choices and all men are victims of a society that panders to females. Extremism has no place in considerate debates, and does not foster common ground, it does garner views though. The tactics of Jubilee begs the question, how can we find middle ground when some of the participants hold such fringe, extreme views?
When researching this article, a common thread was revealed among the comment section of Jubilee’s videos–viewers were exhausted by the sensationalized, extremist framework of videos that are supposed to be about shared values, and common decency. They were also exhausted by Jubilee’s blatantly inaccurate marketing of their goals with their videos and the participants. While Jubilee attempts to get us to believe that most people can find common ground, the structure and production of their videos does the exact opposite. The discourses that matter are not the ones happening on the internet amongst people shouting the most controversial tag line they can to get attention, the ones that matter are happening on our universities, town hall meetings, amongst families, friends and neighbors, in the real world by the people who are facing the consequences of real problems.