In the digital age, journalism has transformed. Influencers and vloggers now shape public opinion, often covering stories overlooked by traditional media. This shift offers fresh perspectives but also raises concerns, especially when it comes to objectivity and ethics. A recent example is a travel vlogger’s video featuring an interview with Jimmy Cherizier, also known as “Barbecue,” a notorious Haitian gang leader. Cherizier’s nickname stems from reports of him burning his victims alive, though he claims it originates from his mother’s barbecuing.
The vlogger and Cherizier drive through the streets of Haiti together, discussing the many problems of the country. The footage shows how Cherizier is seen as a kind of folk hero by residents from Haiti’s disadvantaged neighborhoods, who view him as someone who stands up for their rights against a corrupt system. Viewers reacted enthusiastically, with some comments reading, “Biggest accomplishment of whole YouTube,” and “I learned more on Haiti in one video than ALL videos I have watched on this country so far! Hands up and kudos to you, Timmy.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xxg3WrhfsLI&ab_channel=TimmyKarter
These reactions highlight the vlogger’s ability to shed light on aspects of Cherizier’s motives that are often underrepresented in mainstream media. Yet, this approach raises fundamental questions about the ethics of journalism on social media. While the video may offer a perspective not typically seen in traditional media, it risks overlooking the darker side of Cherizier’s actions and the reasons why he earned his ominous nickname. By focusing on the narrative of resistance against corruption, the vlogger risks providing a platform that romanticizes a complex figure whose reputation is also shaped by brutal violence. Social media has drastically changed the way we consume news. Traditional news organizations such as newspapers and TV stations are increasingly being overtaken by independent content creators, who have the freedom to report events without the constraints of editorial guidelines. At first glance, the video appears inspiring and even an example of good journalism. The vlogger manages to look beyond traditional media, which are often influenced by a Western and colonial past. The video evokes sympathy for Barbecue and his fight against corruption. However, the harsh reality of the violent actions of his gang and their impact on the broader Haitian population is scarcely or not critically addressed. This gives the video an almost romanticized portrayal of a man who, according to other sources, is responsible for bloody conflicts and terror.
This is where the danger of this form of journalism lies: telling an engaging story without the nuance and fact-checking needed to understand the full picture. In attempting to offer a new perspective, there is a risk that reality is distorted into a story where the protagonist—no matter how complex—is depicted too favorably. In the case of this vlogger, one might wonder if he, consciously or unconsciously, was used as a tool for the gang leader to spread his version of reality. Propaganda is not always clear and overt; it can be subtle and wrapped in captivating stories that appeal to our desire for excitement and new perspectives.
The popularity of social media and independent content creators offers the chance to discover new stories and shed light on underreported topics. But it comes with great responsibility, both for the creators and the audience. Journalism is more than just telling an exciting story. It requires research, nuance, and the ability to illuminate all sides of a story. Without these elements, even the most well-intentioned attempt at reporting becomes a potentially dangerous tool for propaganda.
This is a very good example of why critical thinking skills should receive more focus and attention in schools! There’s so many ways of looking at a situation, and so many stories being told from different perspectives, it’s important to be able to think about people’s motivations when telling stories, which parts they may be leaving out and whether or not they’re doing it with a goal in mind. Very interesting post!
I think you hit upon an important problem of this kind of ‘journalism’ near the end of your text. Namely you saying, that journalism is telling more than just an exciting story. I think because of the content algorithms of youtube that emphasize clicks, exciting journalism is given a big priority and thus pushes out all other forms of more thorough and informative journalism that actually has an interest in getting to truth.
Hi, this is an interesting posts and overall topic. To be honest, I would disagree with you. You are highlighting the possibility of propaganda in independent journalism/content creators, however the same thing should be applied to the main-stream news channels, especially state funded ones. Journalists in the west for these channels often produce even more propaganda content then the independent ones and at the end of the day they have way more power over people’s opinions since they are big and perceived as legit ones. When it comes to journalism, western countries actually have a big problem – journalists that are telling “the other side of the story” are often not getting the platform or even fired from their jobs. If you look at the mainstream channels most of the news are through the western lense so its only fair that the independent journalists tell the other side. And I’m sure they do some fact-checking at least.
The purpose of journalism is to uncover the truth, right? However, our governments literally go as much as to imprison the people who uncover the truth like Julian Assange (he started WikiLeaks which exposed state and government secrets).
So, yeah, I just wanted to say that if we let mainstream channels to spread propaganda, might as well let independent creators and then engage with both of them REALLY critically. Being an independent journalists and using social media sometimes is the only way how the truth can be conveyed.
I loved how nuanced this blog was! It showed points of independent journalism and social media also brings risks. I also think YouTubers can bring different light on something, but we still have to think for ourselves and not believe everything we see and listen. It is crazy how these influences have power over us. An example of are the Dutch gossip Instagram accounts. With just one post (with no evidence) they could easily destroy a person. Scary actually..
Your blog highlights the diversity of social media very well! In the Netherlands, you also have different newspapers, with different perspectives on the same topics. However, the difference between these traditional and social media is the fact that not everyone can just publish something in a newspaper. This allows for more radical content on social media platforms. On the other hand, we now have the ability to look at different content very easily. It might be time-consuming, but at least my opinion is not shaped by one newspaper and the daily news anymore.
During covid, I shifted politically to the left because of this. I had time to consume content from the left on YouTube and found it more persuasive and in line with the values I uphold than my previous beliefs. The videos offering different perspectives on social media are valuable, but it’s just to easy to dive into a rabbit hole and only consume certain type of content.