So, there you are at 2 AM, supposedly "winding down for bed," when YouTube serves you a video titled "Can 1 Journalist Survive 20 Far-Right Extremists?" The thumbnail shows someone pointing dramatically across a circle. The comments are already a dumpster fire. Your thumb hovers over the screen, and despite every rational impulse screaming "don't," you tap it anyway.

Congratulations. You've just entered Jubilee's "Surrounded" series—the modern colosseum for people who think they're too sophisticated for reality TV.

The Mehdi Hasan Reality Check

Let's unpack what happened when Jubilee put Mehdi Hasan—legitimately one of the sharpest political interviewers alive—in a room with 20 young conservatives. Hasan came ready for an honest discussion about important issues, probably thinking, "Finally, I can talk with the future leaders of conservative thinking."

What he got instead was a circle of people who turned out to be less "thoughtful young Republicans" and more "fascists who learned to use indoor voices."

And here's the thing that should make every media critic's eye twitch: this outcome was entirely predictable. Jubilee keeps staging these "debates" as if they're conducting some grand social experiment in democratic discourse, then acts genuinely surprised when one side shows up with no intention of good-faith engagement.

It's like that friend who keeps dating the same type of emotionally unavailable person and acts shocked every time it implodes. Except instead of ruining just one person's weekend, this ruins our collective faith in rational discourse.

The Bully Principle: A Thought Experiment

Now, imagine if Jubilee just stripped away all pretense and produced: "Can 20 Nerds Convince 1 Bully to Be Nice?"

Envision this setup: A circle of earnest high schoolers with colour-coded research folders, facing off against Chad, who's slouched in his letterman jacket, arms folded, radiating the intellectual curiosity of a particularly stubborn brick wall.

Nerd #1 approaches with peer-reviewed studies about the psychological impact of bullying. 

Chad's response? "F*ck you."

Nerd #2 tries evolutionary psychology. 

Chad fake-lunges across the table and demands lunch money.

Nerd #3 attempts a PowerPoint presentation on empathy theory. 

Chad gives someone a wedgie during the water break.

Red flags everywhere. Zero minds changed. 2.3 million views.

Now tell me—what's the functional difference between this scenario and watching Mehdi Hasan try to reason with people who showed up ready to recite Great Replacement theory talking points they memorized from Twitter?

The Entertainment Value of Intellectual Futility

Here's the uncomfortable truth your media literacy teacher probably didn't prepare you for: We've transformed legitimate journalism into WWE for people who read Politico. And honestly? Professional wrestling has the decency to admit it's scripted entertainment.

Hasan genuinely excels at what he does. The man can dismantle poor arguments with surgical precision, fact-check in real time, and expose logical fallacies like a master diagnostician. But when the other side comprises people who aren't there to debate ideas but to perform grievances for their TikTok followers? Even Hasan's considerable skills become just... content.

Quick question: When was the last time you watched one of these "Surrounded" episodes and thought, "Wow, that person genuinely reconsidered their worldview based on compelling evidence"?

[Cricket sounds]

Exactly. Because that's not actually the point, is it?

The Data Doesn't Lie (Unlike the Comments Section)

Research on attitude change shows that people typically become more entrenched in their beliefs when confronted with opposing evidence¹. Social psychologists call this the "backfire effect"—essentially, your brain doubles down when challenged, like a toddler being told ice cream isn't a breakfast food.

But Jubilee's format takes this psychological quirk and weaponizes it for engagement metrics. 

They're not creating debate; they're manufacturing a 20-person echo chamber with one dissenting voice in the middle, then filming what happens when that echo chamber gets poked with a stick.

So, what did the Hasan episode accomplish? 

Let's audit the results:

Minds Changed: 0
Racist Talking Points Amplified: 20
People Made Angrier: 2.3 million
Democracy Strengthened: [404: FILE NOT FOUND]
Young Fascists Given Massive Platform: Priceless

The Chad Factor in Modern "Discourse"

Here's where our hypothetical bully scenario becomes devastatingly relevant. At least Chad operates with complete transparency about his intentions. He's not there to learn, grow, or "find common ground." He's there to be Chad, collect lunch money, and distribute wedgies as the spirit moves him.

But in "Surrounded"? We get people who are also essentially Chad, except they've learned to camouflage their intellectual bullying with constitutional theory and "just asking questions" rhetoric. They arrive with no intention of changing their minds, armed with Steve Bannon talking points and zero intellectual curiosity, ready to perform their greatest hits for an audience that already agrees with them.

Hasan (credit to his journalistic integrity) keeps showing up with research, preparation, and the apparently naïve belief that presenting facts clearly will somehow penetrate minds already sealed shut by ideology.

Spoiler alert: It didn't.

Instead, what we witnessed was a masterclass in how to waste one of our sharpest political minds by surrounding him with people whose idea of "research" involves watching YouTube videos in their Honda Civic.

The Algorithm's Favourite Blood Sport

And why wouldn't YouTube keep serving us this content? 

Controversy drives engagement. Outrage drives clicks. Nobody shares a video titled "Journalist Has Respectful Policy Discussion with Informed Conservatives," because that doesn't trigger the same dopamine hit as "LIBERAL JOURNALIST DESTROYED by YOUNG PATRIOTS," or "MAGA TEENS MELT DOWN When Confronted with FACTS."

The algorithm isn't optimizing for truth, understanding, or democratic health. It's optimizing for watch time. And nothing keeps people glued to their screens quite like watching a respected journalist attempt to reason with people who think diversity initiatives are a genocidal plot.

The Mehdi Hasan Paradox

Here's what makes the Hasan episode particularly tragic: He represents precisely the kind of journalist democracy desperately needs. Sharp, prepared, fearless, capable of holding powerful people accountable. But Jubilee's format transformed him into a zoo exhibit—"Come watch the competent journalist try to debate the radicalized youth!"

It's like forcing Mozart to conduct an orchestra of kazoos. Sure, Mozart retains his talent, but the kazoos aren't suddenly going to become violins just because a genius is waving the baton.

The Solution? Stop Feeding the Rage Machine

Look, confrontational journalism serves a vital purpose. When Hasan interviews actual politicians or policy experts who are acting in bad faith, that's democracy in action. That's journalism doing its job.

But "Surrounded"? This isn't journalism. It's performance art masquerading as civic engagement. It's intellectual masturbation with better production values and significantly worse participants. And we're all complicit because we keep clicking, keep watching, keep sharing clips with captions like "THIS JOURNALIST JUST DESTROYED MAGA TEENS" when really what happened was "THIS JOURNALIST JUST GOT USED FOR CONTENT."

Maybe it's time to acknowledge that some people attend these shows purely to distribute intellectual wedgies, and no amount of expert journalism will change that fundamental reality. Maybe it's time to stop pretending these gladiator matches will save democracy.

Maybe it's time to reserve actual debate for people who are actually interested in engaging with ideas, rather than turning our best journalists into content creators for the rage-farming industrial complex.

Because ultimately, you can lead a fascist to facts, but you can't make them think.

¹ Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303-330. (Yes, this is a real study. The irony of citing research about how citing research doesn't work is not lost on me.)

The author definitely didn't spend an embarrassing amount of time watching Jubilee "for research purposes" and is absolutely not bitter about the current state of political discourse. Any resemblance to real debates, living or dead, is purely coincidental and probably your fault for clicking on them in the first place.

 I don't sell memberships or anything, but if you want to buy me a beer, I won't refuse.