"Hugo Décrypte" is now a media outlet. You create informative content on Twitch and social media in general, outside the channels of traditional media. Initially, you didn't attend journalism school; what is your status now?
This question has evolved over time. I launched " Hugo Décrypte s" when I was a student, without a team. Today, I believe my work hasn't changed but has taken a different turn. Indeed, I didn't attend journalism school, I don't have a press card. Yes, I wear multiple hats, particularly entrepreneurial ones, as I lead my media outlet. But within this outlet, I carry out journalistic work daily, surrounded by full-time journalists.
One of the challenges for traditional media is reconciling young people with information, an audience you seem to have attracted. On Instagram, you have 2.3 million followers, and on TikTok, you are followed by 3.3 million people. What, in your opinion, explains this enthusiasm?
I think there are several reasons. First, it's about the demand for depth and the approach to subjects that people found in our content. We tried to ensure that any subject is accessible to the widest audience. For example, when addressing the Israeli-Palestinian issue, we aim for it to be understood by a 14-year-old yet remain interesting with sufficient analysis for someone knowledgeable about the topic.
The second aspect is that we pay special attention to the relevance of our content based on the platform where it will be distributed. Since each network has its specific codes, we create different and adapted content for each platform.
The last pillar is transparency. Simplified dialogue with our audience is important to build a trusting relationship. Those who follow us can easily provide feedback on our content. If a piece of news isn't clear, they can tell us, and then we strive to rectify it in subsequent videos.
Do you think this is the solution to address mistrust?
These are three elements among others to explore, but they guide us. With the teams at " Hugo Décrypte," we often receive positive feedback from people who tell us they understood what they couldn't grasp elsewhere. Moreover, they often say our content is easily accessible. Whether on TikTok, YouTube, or another format, it's within reach. Judging from the feedback, we see that this form of transparency is also essential for those who follow us.
Do you think traditional media should adapt to this new way of delivering information?
In recent years, media outlets have ventured onto social networks, but not all to the same extent. I don't see social networks as a complete overthrow from which traditional media and media brands are destined to disappear or be replaced. However, they must invest in it. For example, Le Monde is very present on Snapchat, YouTube, and almost on all social networks, and has succeeded in adapting its content to each platform. In my opinion, only media that succeed in this online transition will survive.
To achieve this, it's necessary to trust younger profiles, who are sometimes very skilled on platforms like TikTok. Profiles capable of devising suitable formats because they themselves spend a lot of time on these platforms. Trusting these profiles is essential to rejuvenate and engage with this younger generation.
Many people got to know you through content other than informative; you appeared alongside Squeezie in more humorous videos. Why engage in entertainment?
In this case, he invited me several times to appear on his channel. As he is a very good friend, and we get along very well, I accepted. It was just an opportunity to do something different. At "Hugo Decrypts," people come to get informed, and we maintain that on the channel. There's a distinction to be made between me as a person and "Hugo Décrypte" as a media outlet. The audience tends to understand this well.
Whether it's information or entertainment, you showcase your name, sometimes your image. The public might expect your opinions, as recently with the World Cup.
Some asked you to boycott the event. Did you understand their reaction?
I feel that people were asking us to boycott as a media outlet. The question of the boycott was present in many media outlets. For the first time, I think, all media outlets were pushed to take a stance on this event. L'Equipe had to write an editorial, as did Libération. The public asked us the same question they asked other media outlets. Our decision regarding the boycott or not was made internally. It's quite audible whether to boycott or not, but I believed that as a media outlet, it wasn't our role to boycott that event. That's why I decided to create an explanatory video to explain our editorial choice, and transparency plays a role here too. When I was waiting for reactions, I thought we were going to face a lot of criticism. Ultimately, people appreciated our approach.
A few weeks ago, you decided to launch the "positive news" format, which seems to imply facts but also opinions. Is this choice still justified?
Yes, it's an editorial choice and a pedagogical intention. In the context of "FAQ," for example, we try to convey that no media outlet is neutral or perfectly objective. It's true that we can strive for a form of neutrality, and we can claim it. Moreover, I think that in a certain way, "Hugo Décrypte" approaches it. However, absolute neutrality doesn't exist. In our case, yes, we consider, for example, that environmental progress is good news. So, it's indeed a fairly deliberate choice in these formats.
Do you think co-constructing information helps capture a younger and more skeptical audience?
It's one element among others, and media outlets have an interest in doing so. It's an excellent thing, and I believe we could do more of it at "Hugo Decrypts." For instance, one day I did a report on the behind-the-scenes of the 8 PM news on France 2, which we published on the channel. I was quite surprised by the number of comments expressing astonishment at seeing the inner workings. Some people perceive the media as a kind of black box. There's a real need for media education.
Is this new approach triggered by the nature of an audience that is now more engaged?
I'm not sure if my generation, or at least those who follow us, is more engaged than the previous one. The desire for transparency and exchange between a media outlet and its community has always been present, but this desire has long been hindered by a very top-down model, according to which a media outlet transmits information and the public receives it. Social networks allow more horizontal exchange.
This public expectation may have prompted media outlets to explain their editorial choices. Some even embrace the practice of advocacy journalism. This is notably the case with Vakita, a new media outlet launched by Hugo Clément. Are activism and journalism compatible, even necessary, to capture young audiences?
They are compatible because there are different forms of journalism. There's no one form of journalism that's better than another. I think it's a very good thing, and I encourage these different practices. I often invite those who follow us in my "FAQs," in my live sessions, in chats to also follow other media outlets that have different editorial lines, which might be more politically engaged. It's this plurality that enriches the debate in our society.
Propos recueillis par Randa El Fekih