YouTube is my favourite social media platform. For years, I have been watching videos on it every single day. When I was younger, I would watch vlogs of older people whom I considered to be cool, gaming videos and a lot of memes. Later, I would watch more political videos, but recently I have been distancing myself from that. Nowadays, I find myself indulging in a new art form: the video essay.
The rise of the visual essay
Since 2012, when YouTube started prioritizing watch-time over views, the video essay genre thrived. These videos became a prominent feature of YouTube in the 2010s, gaining popularity through creators in film, politics, and academic communities. Initially, these videos covered academic topics and movie criticisms, but as the platform grew to be more mainstream more categories were included. The algorithm change of 2012 made it more rewarding for content creators to produce longer videos. Ever since, videos on politics, social justice, economics, history and other educational content have been increasingly gaining popularity.
The average Joe’s documentary
The rise of the video essay also brings up social issues. In traditional media, the quality of broadcasted content usually needs to be approved by a group of supervisors, similar to academic papers. The freedom YouTube grants eliminates this procedure, simultaneously promoting the spread of misinformation. On the other hand, a platform like YouTube hands out opportunities to people, incentivising them to share their point of view with a wider audience, a group that is not represented in traditional media. Furthermore, video essays differ from other online content, not being limited by time or word constraints like TikTok or X. Additionally, the art of the video essay encourages the creator to highlight an issue by adopting several angles, which calls for more nuance and in-depth research.
Societal impact
In an age where social media are dictating our lives, I think the video essay is a positive development as an extension of traditional media. I find it a way for us to engage more with all the access to information we currently possess. I also find it a solution to our reduced attention spans, which have been drastically reduced as a consequence of increased social media usage.
Furthermore, the specific subjects covered in video essays attract a more dedicated audience interested in niche topics, which changes the relationship between the content creator and his audience. The creator is more incentivised to engage with his community, unlike mainstream YouTubers with a broader audience. The ideas put forward by the video essayist reinforce the community’s critical thinking skills. This has the potential to be a great synthesis of the critical thinking reduction created by social media usage and ‘brainrot’.
Lastly, narrative is a main component of an in-depth video essay. To appeal to a broad public, narrative and storytelling must be structured and seductive. As part of a generation which generally does not read that many books, I think it is a good development that we are being exposed to a lot of storytelling. Therefore, I hope the video essay brings back many of the interesting and intellectual debates to the mainstream audience.
I am also very fond of video essays on YouTube. Which YouTubers do you watch?
This was quite the interesting read, but I would have to disagree on one point: I don’t quite believe that individuals watching video essays would be encouraged to be more critical. Rather, as you have mentioned, publicly available videos such as these are a breeding ground for misinformation. This spread of misinformation does not even have to be done consciously, a small mistake or error that was missed can make its way to the end video.
While creators such as Tom Scott and Veritasium have a reputation of being reputable, with their sources and references made broadly available, I highly doubt the average joe will look through them to fact check them. Rather, I believe that the video essay genre could even cause the opposite of promoting critical thinking – it might in fact breed a more lax attitude about the truthfulness and correctness of these video essays, causing people to believe information which might not be wholly correct. But those are just some of my insights I have. I admit that I am part of the “blindly believe the creator” camp. But if I’m wrong, then I’ll find out at some point (I hope, at least)
It’s great to educate and engage audiences in niche topics, but when it comes to intellectual debates on social issues, I really miss traditional media. Formal debates, like Intelligence Squared, present real time discussions with top experts, where the moderator ensures balanced dialogue and audience interaction.
Comments under video essays are more of scattered pieces of opinions of those who usually lack shared definitions of topic discussed and, most importantly, the broader context. Reading it doesn’t form a logical flow of thought that could make a coherent argument in response to the video.
I think video essays lean more on on creativity and audiovisuals while debates are about logic, evidence, and rhetoric. I’m really awaiting a medium of a format that finds a middle ground between free access with high quality public discussions, though I guess it all comes down to funding.