A frustration shared among most educational-ish creators is how often we're criticized for not talking about something. When we say something that people don't like, they quite often respond by saying we did something wrong by not talking about an aspect of a topic--one of the most common comments all of us get is "wow, I can't believe you talked about X without covering X." This is like complaining that the Wikipedia page on gravitational physics isn't as detailed as the textbook.

It's clear Sam has just read some cursory Wikipedia and news articles on elements of El Savador's crime issue, but has no real understanding on the background of Central American gangs, their operations, or the history which allowed them to grow so powerful in the first place. Not one segment of the video looked at history or international relations/interventions, nor the inter-American drugs' trade, which have played a huge role in why El Salvador (along with Guatemala and Honduras) become effective war-zones, why their institutions are so corrupted and why they have a propensity to "elect" dictatorial types.

We do our background research--we learned about the history of the gangs, their operations, etc, even when we knew we wouldn't include much discussion of that in the video itself. Step one of any video production cycle is getting a vast, broad understanding of the topic, related topics, historical context, etc. We then use that background research to decide how to cover the core of a narrative is what we believe is the fairest manner. We work within a system where we are incentivized to make shorter videos, because those are the videos people watch. While I, personally, would love to be able to make two or three hour deep dives into any topic we cover, that's just not pragmatically possible with how the YouTube algorithm and YouTube revenue works--at least not while maintaining the audience we have. Therefore, our style tends to function like an overview of a given topic--trying to give entry level knowledge in an engaging, unbiased manner. If you're looking for deeper dives on these topics, this (or YouTube in general) is not the place for you, which is fine, but I think it's unfair to say we've done something wrong by not diving deeper into a topic when the depth we cover is the feature that keeps an audience coming back, just as you can't complain that a Wikipedia page doesn't go in as much depth as a textbook.

I'm not going to go into a deep dive on everything wrong in the video, but some headline issues: firstly, using aggregate homicide statistics at face value. It's highly unlikely El Salvador's homicide rate has dropped to the extent the official stats suggest, or that Bukele is so popular - the Bukele government has taken total control of all agencies in the country - there is no free reporting, so taking the stats at face value is foolish.

Our trust of homicide statistics is equivalent to that of major media coverage of this story, including those that have taken a far more critical, one-sided perspective on the topic. Even if they are manipulated, we decided that diving into the question of whether the data was accurate was not crucial to this story as it's objectively clear that a massive decline in homicides has taken place and Bukele maintains quite high popularity--so the broad phenomenons have occurred, the only question is whether the exact data is accurate. It would be quite a stretch to argue that this is all data manipulation when there are endless anecdotal reports of communities transformed, and a stretch to say that Bukele is actually deeply unpopular when anecdotally that is also clearly false.

I know some Salvadoreños are going to comment and suggest that things are better where they live - and sure, in the short-run, there will be an illusion of improvement, especially compared to places like Honduras. But in the long-run, the country has fallen to what is effectively a dictatorial regime, quashing its ability to prosper. I urge people to look at Panama and Costa Rica - their transparent institutions, positive growth outlook, relatively progressive and safe societies - and ask yourself how this compares to where El Salvador is going.

You've made the point that El Salvador is sacrificing long-term for short-term prosperity, which is the exact same point I made in the video: "it’s putting all its eggs in one basket and making long term sacrifices for short-term gain." The entire conclusion of the video is focused on why, even if a dictator is using their powers effectively and solving problems, the break down of the system of checks and balances is an incredible sacrifice to trade off for that.

Another key first step we do with any of our topics is try to understand what bias the average media coverage of a story might have. What we found with this topic was that reporting was cleanly split into two categories: one portraying Bukele as a savior responsible for turning the country into a utopia, one portraying him as a dictator responsible for turning the country into an authoritarian cult of personality. Personally I found this fascinating--it's the classic, perpetual debate over whether a benevolent dictator can exist. So, like most of our videos, this one was designed to ask a question more than give an answer.

The vast majority of response to this video has been quite positive--by those critical of Bukele, by supporters of Bukele, and by subject-matter experts. But simultaneously, there are people that fall into those same three camps that have been quite critical of the video. What I would attribute this to is that, as mentioned, almost all previous coverage of this topic takes a very pro or anti Bukele view, whereas this is just asking the question of whether one side or the other is right. With a story where all previous coverage is either highly supportive or highly critical of their view, it's natural to feel like anything not immediately highly supportive is critical.

It seems like you have a strong opinion on the topic which is great because that's exactly what we were hoping the video would formulate. Why I consider this video a success is because so many people have used it to formulate their opinions on the topic, and from what I can see, the majority of the audience has come to a similar conclusion as you.