Jubilee is a platform not for productive dialogue, but for division and centers around a business model of profiting off of hatred and bigotry. Creating a space for people of all political backgrounds is one thing. But when those people who are platformed directly advocate for policies that could undermine democracy or rob certain groups of the right to share their opinions, continuing to give them a voice shows a clear indifference and willingness to allow those ideologies to prosper as long as it profits the company.
The group was founded in 2010 as a non-profit organization centered on its YouTube channel by the same name and operating on a message of empathy and understanding. In 2017, the channel reorganized as the for-profit group, Jubilee Media, around the same time it began covering political topics with the goal of representing both left and right-wing points of view.
Since then, Jubilee has begun distributing increasingly divisive content and extreme viewpoints, despite claiming to promote mutual understanding. In one video, immigrants were asked to debate Trump supporters, only to be attacked. In another, transgender individuals were asked to debate whether they deserved the right to express themselves in public. It’s hard to imagine how these videos allow for any kind of greater understanding; if anything, they foster division and ignite pre-existing tensions.
Jubilee platform extremists frame the channel as legitimate for debating important issues, even when they often do so in bad faith. Numerous times in recent years, they’ve featured right-wing speakers in their debate videos, ranging from far-right conservatives to borderline neo-nazis. In the past, Jubilee guests have advocated extreme positions from idealizing fascist leaders, such as Carl Schmidt and Francisco Franco, to arguing that the United States (U.S.) should become an autocracy.
We have a right to free speech, but media companies should be held to a higher standard of responsibility to avoid lending legitimacy to those who advocate for the removal of rights for certain groups, like the right to freedom of speech itself.
In their video, “1 Progressive vs 20 Far-Right Conservatives (ft. Mehdi Hasan),” released earlier this year, left-wing political journalist Mehdi Hasan debates 20 conservatives, including several alt-right extremists who went on to not only debate in bad faith, but also argue racist talking points.
One such talking point included the belief that white people are native to the U.S. and that violating the Constitution is a good thing, with one guest by the name of Connor even identifying himself as a fascist who thinks the U.S. should eliminate the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
Jubilee’s debate videos are structured in a way that doesn’t facilitate fair, good-faith debating but rather fosters anger and engagement. Many guests have little formal debate experience and go in to provoke rather than actually debate the question that Jubilee gives them a microphone to discuss.
Many of these videos operate on the premise of trying to find a middle ground, yet invite guests who make racist, alienating statements. In their 2018 video, “Can Trump Supporters And Immigrants See Eye To Eye? | Middle Ground,” one of the guests they invited claimed that violence is baked into the religion of Islam and that the Muslim travel ban at the time was necessary to keep violent people out of the country. It’s questionable for Jubilee to platform these ideas and claim that they’re doing it in the name of empathy and compassion.
Giving hateful extremists a platform to speak is particularly dangerous because it allows people with the same views the ability to continue spreading them and reach a larger audience, even if it’s done from the supposedly neutral stance of hosting a debate.
In an interview, former Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz asked the founder of Jubilee Media, Jason Y. Lee, if the company was concerned about the danger of spreading alt-right ideologies. Lee responded by claiming that the way Jubilee structures its videos is from an unbiased position and that it simply wants to represent both sides equally.
The problem is that many of these Jubilee videos present a moderate position and an extremist one side by side as if they are equal and have them debate. In doing so, they imply that both positions are legitimate and acceptable, which is not the case. This can lead young, impressionable viewers to see both sides as equal, making them more open to considering radical viewpoints. Additionally, by normalizing extremist views, Jubilee contributes to rising political polarization across the aisle.
Clips from these videos are often broken up and reposted across platforms like Instagram and TikTok, where most people see them. This means they’re taken out of context, and rather than giving people a clear picture, they only present the most viral, provoking and bite-sized pieces. While Jubilee preaches that their goal is productive dialogue, what the general public ends up with is far from it, simply whatever stirs the pot the most.
Jubilee claims that its goal is to “provoke understanding & create human connection,” but it is not a platform for legitimate political discussion in the slightest. It increasingly promotes political extremists, hateful rhetoric and debates that go nowhere, resulting in profit for the company and clickbait content on social media.
The company has demonstrated that it is ignorant, if not indifferent, to the consequences of the ideas its channel propagates and cares more about making a quick buck than portraying an issue in good faith.
