Youtube Journalism

Over the past few years, YouTube “journalism” has gained serious traction, largely because it blends sensationalism with entertainment while borrowing the language of investigation. Creators like Tyler Oliveira are prime examples, with video titles such as “I Investigated the Drug Overdose Capital of America” or “England Where Free Speech Is ILLEGAL.” These titles are engineered to provoke outrage.

One of Oliveira’s more controversial videos, “I Investigated George Floyd’s ‘Murder,’” follows the same formula. Scroll through the comments and you’ll find lines like: “As a white person, I will never take responsibility for something I didn’t do.” The video leans heavily on a familiar right-wing talking point that Floyd’s death was caused by drugs rather than cardiopulmonary arrest due to police restraint, despite being directly contradicted by multiple medical examiners.

Manufacturing Doubt

Rather than presenting new evidence, the video questions the legitimacy of Derek Chauvin’s trial and pivots to the financial misconduct of a BLM founder which is an obvious non sequitur (not denying that some fraud happened during the BLM movement). The purpose isn’t clarity; it’s doubt. This tactic mirrors the playbook used by anti-vaxxers (not vaccine skeptics, who raise valid concerns). The structure is always the same: exaggerated claims, selective anecdotes, and the rhetorical shield of “I’m not saying this is true, I’m just asking questions.”

By the end, Oliveira endorses Liz Collin’s book, They’re Lying: The Media, the Left, and the Death of George Floyd. At that point, this just becomes one-sided marketing wrapped in investigative aesthetics.

"I'm Just Asking Questions"

The YouTube journalism formula is simple and effective. Spend most of the runtime on street interviews from “both sides.” Add a few friendly “experts.” Make everyone seem reasonable and relatable. Signal-boost their claims without verification. Then close the video with unanswered questions instead of conclusions.

In the Floyd video, everything boils down to a handful of loaded questions: Was Chauvin improperly trained? Did the angry crowd delay medical assistance? Once again, the creator hides behind “I don’t know the answers, I’m just asking questions,” while carefully steering viewers toward their narrative.

Actual Journalism

Oliveira did not independently analyze autopsy reports. He didn’t dig into trial transcripts or cross-examine testimony. He didn’t uncover anything that hadn’t already been examined extensively by local outlets, international media, and actual investigative journalists. George Floyd’s death was one of the most documented and scrutinized cases in modern American history. Yet, Oliveira and Liz Collin present themselves as if they’re finally revealing the “truth.”

Collin, for context, is no neutral observer. She’s now affiliated with Alpha News, a conservative outlet that openly frames itself as ideological rather than objective. She’s also married to Bob Kroll, the former head of the Minneapolis police union that aggressively defended Chauvin. That’s a glaring conflict of interest.

The video largely regurgitates Collin’s talking points, none of which have overturned the medical examiner’s ruling, trial evidence, or jury verdict. That’s unsurprising when roughly 80% of the runtime is spent on street interviews that reveal nothing beyond a deeply divided America.

This Isn’t About Truth

I don’t even think Oliveira’s Floyd video is particularly relevant anymore. It recycles arguments that have been circulating in conservative spaces for years, now repackaged to poke at white grievance and fragility. So let me be very clear: it’s okay to be white.

As someone who’s left-leaning and outspoken on these issues, I’m saying that explicitly. You don’t need YouTube journalists manufacturing persecution narratives to validate your identity. Ironically, the same people who rail against “snowflakes” are often the most emotionally fragile of all. If they want to take pride in their whiteness for a moment, fine. Just don’t confuse that with journalism, or mistake a participation trophy for truth.

The Floyd case, while undeniably important, happened in 2020. Oliveira released his video in November 2024. Four years later, it adds absolutely nothing to the public understanding of what happened. Its only real function is to rile up his audience and generate YouTube clout.

Minnesota Fiasco

I bring this up because the same pattern shows up again with Nick Shirley’s recent slate of videos claiming to uncover widespread fraud in Minnesota. NPR has already published a basic rundown of Shirley’s background, which is useful context here.

To be clear: fraud did occur. After years of investigation, Aimee Bock’s organization, Feeding Our Future, was found to have committed large-scale fraud during COVID-19, and convictions followed. That part is not in dispute. What is in dispute are the claims Shirley makes in his videos, which have not been substantiated. His approach is familiar: show up at random locations, knock on doors, act shocked when things don’t match his expectations, and imply wrongdoing without evidence.

Just like Oliveira’s work, this adds nothing new. However, the real danger is that the Trump administration actively signal-boosted Shirley’s content, linking his videos to convictions that occurred before those videos were ever released.

From Sensationalism to Policy Harm

Shirley’s response is essentially “fraud is fraud.” No kidding. Investigators had already been working these cases for years, and the justice system had already produced results. Yet after Shirley sensationalized individual daycare centers with unfounded claims, the administration froze child care payments across the board.

Imagine if every parent in Alberta suddenly stopped receiving their child benefit payments because a YouTuber visited random daycares and produced no verified evidence of wrongdoing. That would rightly be called unhinged government overreach. It’s also collective punishment, which is wrong on every level. You also don’t get to justify that by saying, “Well, then they shouldn’t have defrauded.” 

This Isn’t Just an American Problem

These YouTube journalists aren’t confined to America. A few years ago, I wrote about Aaron Gunn’s video Canada Is Dying. His critique of British Columbia’s harm reduction system was riddled with inaccuracies, strawman arguments, and fear-based messaging designed to energize his audience. He’s now a Member of Parliament for the federal Conservative Party.

These creators wield real power, and in a deeply polarized political environment where social media algorithms aggressively reward outrage, this problem is only going to get worse.

Facts Don't Care About Your Feelings

Facts don’t seem to matter anymore when everyone believes they’re the sole holder of the truth. Nick Shirley’s YouTube bio says he’s “here to entertain and bring the truth to all.” That’s evangelism; it’s not journalism. 

And we can’t have politicians, like Tim Walz, cracking under pressure from YouTube personalities. That only hands them more power. The moment elected officials start governing in response to viral videos rather than evidence, the damage is already done.

Entertainment Dictates Policy

I’ll admit it. Some of Oliveira’s videos are entertaining, especially when he targets Scientology or exposes the grift of Kenneth Copeland’s megachurch. But when creators brand themselves as truth-tellers while rejecting expertise, peer review, evidence, and accountability, they aren’t challenging the system. They’re exploiting its weaknesses.

I’m not claiming institutions are perfect or that skepticism is bad. Skepticism is necessary. But if we want a society governed by facts rather than feelings, we need to stop mistaking entertainment for investigation. Otherwise, YouTube journalism won’t just distort reality. It will start writing policy.