I Wouldn't Go in There

This show should ditch the haunted location angle all together. It's very obviously a gimmick to bring in an audience, even if said audience is not at all the target for this kind of programming.

The narrator has no interest in the subject of hauntings and, in attempting to debunk said locations, he belittles the locals and their superstitions. As an educational show about the traumas Asian countries have faced: it's great, but it's obvious the haunted-location angle is shoehorned in.

(Here, have some elaboration.)

This show is the essence of the slippery slope falacy. RJ starts off introducing a haunted location and, once he can't prove 1 myth behind the haunting, jumps ship from the idea entirely. After he has done the bare minimum to look into the haunted location he will begin to look into the area's tragic past, losing the narrative as he stretches to make connections of irrelevant local leads. By the end we have learned a lot about the location, but there is no conclusion to the main question: is the location haunted? He glosses over it by saying he "debunked" the location, clearly not understanding that personal beliefs does not count as debunking. The connections between the information he learns and the haunted locations is laughable, discrediting him as a paranormal debunker and investigative reporter.

This show would benefit from more editing and research staffing and a change in premise. As it is now, it's best suited for YouTube.