Top 5 Comments
5. Conclusions, Reflections & Future Research Recommendations
In this closing chapter, I will be assessing the Video Analysis findings on the representational choices, self-branding methods and entrepreneurial strategies of True Crime YouTubers Bailey Sarian and Antphrodite, with a view to establishing whether the two innovative YouTubers are adhering to journalistic values pertaining to Objectivity, Public Service, and Ethics.
To this purpose, I will be contrasting the video presentation procedures and underlying conceptualizations of their content to the Infotainment paradigm’s, in order to determine the particularities of their respective, “amateur” style.
Furthermore, I will be discussing the Methodological Limitations of my study and making my recommendations for Future Research.
Conclusions
i) Objectivity
For the purposes of this thesis, “Objectivity” refers to transparency in terms of sourcing, attention to fact-checking, lack of expressing personal bias and presuppositions, and interpretation on the basis of some sort of expertise (e.g. educational or work experience) that the viewers perceive as authoritative.
Firstly, as far as transparency in terms of sourcing is concerned, in the Infotainment paradigm, sourcing is conceptualized as crediting stylistic video components only; the sources for the factual information presented in the video are not displayed. Nevertheless, photographers and videographers whose work is used for the episode are impersonally credited in a confusing block of text, which makes attribution unclear. In fact, this haphazard
format is a standardized crediting practice for external contributors, that appears in other BuzzFeed series as well (e.g. BuzzFeed Unsolved Supernatural). Individual artists unaffiliated with the BuzzFeed brand are therefore seemingly only credited for legal purposes. On the other hand, BuzzFeed staff are properly credited with a link to their Buzzfeed projects and on-screen text at the end of the video (see Cast & Crew in Appendix).
Sarian’s approach is the exact opposite, as the sources for the factual information202 presented during her video are displayed, but its stylistic video components (e.g. Short’s photographs) are not credited. Moreover, Sarian introduces her external research assistant with a personal thank-you-message, while also clearly providing her full name and a link to her portfolio, meaning that external contributors are credited attentively.
Rather than exclusively attributing the factual (Sarian) or stylistic (Infotainment paradigm) information used to make his video, Antphrodite attributes no source whatsoever; sourcing is not considered necessary for narrative legitimation, as Antphrodite’s content is speculative by definition (psychic readings). What is more, Antphrodite’s content solely depends upon himself, in the sense that there are no external contributors and/or research assistants.
As far as attention to fact-checking is concerned, in the Infotainment paradigm, Ryan -who has taken on the “researcher” role in the duo’s dynamic- is, at times, asked to answer for the validity of the presented evidence, by Shane. Indeed, “researcher” Ryan does so, in a manner which suggests that he has personally evaluated the information. Nevertheless, the intentional construction of antithetical, yet complementary roles which “stipulate” that Ryan take on the researcher role on the one hand, and the fact that the video is a product of a team of professionals whose fact-checking contributions/methodology is unknown on the other hand, at the very least suggest that if fact-checking has taken place, it was not necessarily done by one of the hosts. Moreover, the mere involvement of a team of professionals strongly suggests that resource-wise, the Infotainment paradigm should be able to present the least problematic
202 Sarian’s sources are institutional (LAPD, FBI, UNC) and include police surveillance transcripts on the main suspect and general FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) information. The Press is not referenced as a source of factual information.
material in terms of accuracy, in comparison to the other videos which are made by amateurs (who have more limited resources).
Even so, there are three types of problems when it comes to fact-checking in the Infotainment paradigm. Firstly, ambiguity towards a sensational reading is encouraged203 in ways that enable the misrepresentation of Actors -both the victim’s and the supposed perpetrator’s-; Secondly, sponsored content is possibly informing the direction of the narrative204, and thirdly, factually inaccurate information205 is also included possibly because of limited source variation (and showcasing Steve Hodel’s theories too much). Nevertheless, Shane’s questions to Ryan (note that Shane’s positioning is meant to resemble the average viewer’s) suggest that fact-checking as a general practice is evaluated positively. However, since the sponsor could be seriously influencing what information is presented in the video, profit-making prioritization counterbalances the purpose of fact-checking.
In Sarian’s video, sensational readings are not encouraged through ambiguous phrasing when it comes to the victim, however, Sarian is less careful about the factual representation of the primary suspect206, despite varying her sources more than the Infotainment paradigm.
Moreover, lack of information is addressed with reassuring speculation (e.g. Due to Sarian’s storytelling style -which favors narrative embellishment- police is represented positively, even when there is no information to indicate what actually happened or why), essentially showing a disregard for fact-checking. That being said, sponsored content is thematically set apart from the narrative and an external assistant is specifically tasked with FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) research. In effect, fact-checking is evaluated positively, but personalization is prioritized.
203 Such is the case with the address book from which “about 75” men were contacted by the police (the overall presentation of the information suggests that Short knew dozens of men), and the quote by John Douglas about the crime being “very solvable” today (the overall presentation of the information suggests that this concerns George Hodel’s culpability, whereas Douglas was not specifically referring to him).
204 It is possible that the paid promotion for I Am The Night in “The Chilling Black Dahlia Revisited” included or encouraged the erroneous suggestion that George Hodel was the father of Fauna Hodel (see Fact-checking) .
205 Lucila Lalu was not “found bisected and posed in an empty lot just like the Black Dahlia”. The connection between Lalu and the Black Dahlia could be coming from Steve Hodel’s book Black Dahlia Avenger: The True Story.
206 Sarian’s phrasing suggests that George Hodel had something to do with his secretary’s death, so that the latter wouldn’t talk to police about the Black Dahlia. However, the secretary actually died two years before Short’s murder.
In Antphrodite’s video, factual information is of little importance for the narrative, since the YouTuber exclusively gives his opinion and makes speculations, in a confident manner. Indeed, the case itself is barely introduced. Facts, let alone fact-checking, are not considered necessary for narrative legitimation.
As far as the expression of personal bias & presuppositions is concerned, in the Infotainment paradigm, the hosts do not hold back from subjecting the primary suspect to value judgements and describing him in offensive language. In fact, he is explicitly called a
“murderer”, and his overall representation can be traced back to the exceptional male killer and lust murderer archetypes, suggesting that such discourse is still culturally relevant. Other actors -including the hosts- may be subjected to ridicule (e.g. Steve Hodel) for comedic purposes, but the victim is not openly criticized.
Authority and expert portrayal vary, since the LAPD is portrayed as a “notoriously corrupt”
organization, but a careful distinction is made to ensure that only the “early 20th century” -and not the contemporary- LAPD is being criticized. Family relations are presented as an impediment to professionalism in terms of detective work (e.g. Steve Hodel). Interestingly enough, the less connected to actors of questionable professionalism (e.g. Steve Hodel) expert opinion is, the more validated it is presented as (e.g. Dr. Arpad Vass vs anonymous “forensic expert hired by Steve Hodel”).
Finally, the Press is presented as a credible source of information, and the sensationalism of the original coverage of the Black Dahlia case is acknowledged, but not criticized. In conclusion, personal bias and presuppositions are openly expressed.
This is also the case for Sarian’s video, in which the primary suspect is subjected to value judgment and discursively equated to the Black Dahlia murderer, whereas an unreliable suspect (Christine Reynolds) is subjected to ridicule and discursively equated to a murderer too. G.
Hodel’s overall representation specifically, can be traced back to the lust murderer archetype, suggesting that such discourse is still culturally relevant.
Furthermore, in terms of negative bias, the media are criticized for sexualizing the victim, exploiting contemporary societal unease over homosexuality, and causing false confession
hysteria due to sensationalist coverage; the sensationalism of the original coverage of the Black Dahlia case is thus both acknowledged and frowned upon. Sarian is also negatively predisposed against “rich people”. On the other hand, the victim is portrayed sympathetically, in a humanizing, personal manner, and overall police representation is positive and respectful.
Like the other YouTubers, Antphrodite’s personal bias and presuppositions are openly expressed. Contrary to them, however, the perpetrators are not subjected to value judgement and are, in fact, shown to act within reason. Rather than being conceptualized as (exceptional) psychosexual deviants, they are depicted as “Mafia” type criminals, prone to taking retributive action.
The most notable differentiation concerns victim portrayal, as the victim is discursively made responsible for her murder (victim-blaming) and her representation is instrumentalized in order to explain the crime (“she was a message”). Accordingly, the media are criticized for deliberating hiding or altering information when sensationalizing stories, in order to portray the victim in a more sympathetic manner, suggesting both a distrust for sensationalized media representations and a prejudice against overly sympathetic victim portrayals.
As far as interpretation on the basis of some sort of expertise is concerned, in the Infotainment paradigm, both co-hosts state their personal opinions -even going as far as identifying the murderer and passing moral judgements-, during the comedic commentary segments, through seemingly unscripted speech patterns and colloquial language. However, neither co-host claims to interpret the case facts on the basis of educational or former work experience. The hosts therefore express personal opinions due to reasons pertaining to personalization and relatability; Interpretation serves the purpose of entertainment.
In Bailey Sarian’s video, the YouTuber -who also pronounces the guilt of a suspect and passes moral judgements- states her personal opinion as a performative narrator whose content is tailored to suit her, while exhibiting a genuine interest in solving the case with the help of the viewer, but she doesn’t claim to interpret the case facts on the basis of expertise, either. Like the BuzzFeed hosts, she expresses her personal opinion due to reasons pertaining to personalization and relatability, and interprets case facts for the purpose of entertainment.
Antphrodite, who is a professional psychic, exclusively states his personal opinion due to his psychic skill. Moreover, the viewers respond positively to his positioning, by acknowledging this marketable skill as a service. Antphrodite is therefore the only content creator to express his personal opinion due to his expertise, but because he interprets the crime in terms of motive without “know(ing) the full story” and in order “to help and get some information on this” “for entertainment purposes only”, interpretation serves the purpose of entertainment, in this case, too.
In conclusion, neither Bailey Sarian’s nor Antphrodite’s video content falls under the Objectivity 1.0 or Objectivity 2.0 category, because they have not systematically credited their sources, they exhibit considerable personal bias, and, in Sarian’s case, she does not offer her personal opinion on the basis of expertise.
Of particular interest is Antphrodite’s approach, because his expertise might not be based on a traditionally acknowledged skill, but it is accepted by the viewers as authoritative/credible207. This particularity allows him to express speculative opinions that cast a shadow of doubt on the victim’s moral character without being called out for character assassination, because he supposedly speaks from a position of “knowledge”; However, it is important to note that despite being notorious and, technically speaking, open, the Black Dahlia case pertains to the mid 20th century Hollywood, which was a much romanticized/glamorized in the collective conscious time in show business208. Audiences would possibly be more critical and less accepting of Antphrodite’s victim blaming in a more recent, contemporary case.
Another noteworthy particularity of Antphrodite’s approach is that he doesn’t just base his opinion on a non traditional skill, but also expresses it differently from what would be expected of an expert; Rather than stating his opinion in order to make a point and argue in favor of or
207 Note that Antphrodite is not receiving “hate” for doing psychic reading videos in general, but only when he does True Crime psychic reading videos; This suggests that such criticism doesn’t have to do with his overall positioning as a psychic, but with the subject matters deemed appropriate for him, as a psychic.
208 Note how Antphrodite talks about an “industry” (“she started to slowly get affected by the industry”) using specific cultural references (“Studio 54 chaos”, “sex, drugs, rock n’roll”), while acknowledging that it is “stuff that would not fly nowadays”.
against a position, Antphrodite uses disclaimers209 to pre-emptively block negative criticism, which suggests that he is first and foremost interested in his personal portrayal. This particularity will lead to a further differentiation from the other YouTubers, in the case of the Public Service value.
ii) Public Service
As far as the conceptualization of YouTuber and viewer roles in regard to promoting social cohesion is concerned, in the Infotainment paradigm, the most likely perpetrator is to be identified during the True Crime case presentation. Pronouncing the guilt of a suspect is specifically legitimated because Infotainment can offer closure to the relatives/living descendants of victims when the Justice System has failed to identify, apprehend, prosecute and convict perpetrators.
The viewers agree with the video’s narrative about the primary suspect’s guilt and accept the hosts’ discursive power to pronounce it. However, viewers are to be addressed as consumers of video content and products, without being encouraged to participate in any capacity other than watching, shopping, etc. Moreover, the explicit reason for making an(other) episode on the Black Dahlia case, is that the sponsor “has asked us to take a closer look at a case we previously covered”. Information is therefore provided within a primarily profit-orientation context.
Even though, in Sarian’s video, the most likely perpetrator is to be identified during the True Crime case presentation too, pronouncing the guilt of a suspect210 is legitimated thanks to the YouTuber’s “best friend” persona, which is established through strong personalization during the entirety of the video.
The viewers accept Sarian’s representation as their “best friend” and are invested in her persona. In fact, viewers respond to her call to bring forward their own ideas, but the interest in
209 (That’s exactly what I think happened. Allegedly, for entertainment purpose only. My opinion. It’s my opinion.
No facts here, girl, all printer.”).
210 (“I know it’s, like, I’m not bringing a lot of evidence and proof to this, it’s- but I… He was guilty. So George became a pretty strong suspect, and the police are thinking like, ‘This is our guy, but we need to get a confession’”).
crime-solving that both sides exhibit is not related to the informed citizen model of democracy211 , but to the escapist aspect of entertainment212 . That being said, the explicit reason for making an episode on the Black Dahlia case, is that viewers have repeatedly asked for it213. Consequently, viewers are to be addressed as essential to the video-making process, influential contributors, who have the power to choose subjects and whose opinion is actively sought out.
Moreover, participatory behavior that is not strictly consumerist is rewarded. Contextually important, but ad-unfriendly wording, further suggests a non-commercial interest in True Crime. Therefore, viewers are encouraged to participate in a non-consuming capacity, but such participation is not expected to exceed suggesting theories on who the perpetrator might be.
Information is provided within a primarily truth-seeking context in order to entertain and not due to a politically conscious stance.
In Antphrodite’s case, speculating about the perpetrator is legitimated thanks to the YouTuber’s niche skill, meaning that Antphrodite’s central position as an entertainer-entrepreneur who has complete control over the narrative, is emphasized. Direct (through links to paid services), or indirect (by offering his insight into a cold case because he’s a psychic) self-promotion, appears to be the de facto objective of the video.
The viewers accept Antphrodite’s positioning as an entertainer-entrepreneur whose marketable skill constitutes a service, and are invested in his persona. However, they are not responding to his call for help regarding the case and barely discuss it at all. From Antphrodite’s side, viewers are to be primarily addressed as consumers of video content and services, and, on a secondary level, encouraged to give their opinion. Viewers are therefore encouraged to participate in a non-consuming capacity, but such participation is not expected to exceed suggesting ideas that simply add to Antphrodite’s narrative and it is secondary to the much more emphasized participation in a consuming capacity. The explicit reasons for making an
211 See The (Un)informed Citizen.
212 See True Crime & Infotainment.
213 (“Today I wanted to talk about the case I am always asked to do the most *…+”, “before we jump in today’s highly requested video”).
episode on the Black Dahlia case, are “to get the story out there to those that don’t know”,
“shed some light on the situation”, and “help and get some information on this”. Also, because the viewers have asked for it (“highly requested”) and “for entertainment purposes only”. All in all, information is provided within a primarily profit-orientation context.
In conclusion, in terms of Public Service, True Crime YouTubers in all examined videos -including the Infotainment paradigm- do not provide information to their viewers with the intent to enable them to put pressure on/assist the State’s response to a highly publicized, unsolved murder case. The viewers are, at most, encouraged to theorize about the case, for their own entertainment (Bailey Sarian, Antphrodite).
At the same time, it is interesting to note that both in the Infotainment paradigm and Bailey Sarian’s video, social issues such as police corruption (BuzzFeed) or victim sexualization (Bailey Sarian) are addressed. Indeed, True Crime YouTubers do not shy away from criticizing the police for corruption (BuzzFeed) or negligence (Bailey Sarian), and may challenge the very notion that the media is supposed to serve the public, by bringing up examples where media involvement actually hindered law enforcement (e.g. false confession hysteria, Bailey Sarian).
However, profit-orientation and a personality-based capitalization of True Crime material can also lead to the expression of socially harmful rhetoric, such as victim blaming, which diverts attention from addressing/acknowledging systemic failures (Antphrodite). In this manner, YouTuber conceptualizations within the True Crime genre may actually be adversarial to the journalistic value of Public Service.
iii) Ethics
As far as sensationalist framing is concerned, in the Infotainment paradigm, the victim is discussed corporeally as Elizabeth Short and abstractly as the Black Dahlia, adding to the sensational framing of the Black Dahlia case. Her dead body is shown covered with a blanket
and described sensationally214. Even though sensational readings about the victim’s life are enabled due to ambiguity215 and suggestive information is emphasized with on-screen text216, sexual violence is either not discussed at all217 or not discussed as such218. The sensationalism of the original coverage of the Black Dahlia case is acknowledged, but not criticized, meaning that sensationalism is passively endorsed. In conclusion, the narrative emphasizes sensational elements whenever possible, without risking de-monetization.
In Bailey Sarian’s video, the victim is discussed as Elizabeth Short in a humanizing manner;
the Jane Doe and Black Dahlia constructs take on the impersonal, discursively “dead”/notorious murder case representations respectively. The Black Dahlia moniker specifically is negatively associated with sensationalism, since the sensationalism of the original coverage of the Black Dahlia case is both acknowledged and frowned upon. Sarian visually and discursively “protects”
the viewers from especially graphic content219 and does not describe the dead body sensationally; In general, only details that can serve as clues are brought up. On-screen text is used sparingly for comedic or promotional purposes, but sexual violence is discussed -albeit somewhat inaccurately220-, and sexual abuse is referred to as such, at the expense of YouTube monetization. In conclusion, the narrative prioritizes truth-seeking at the expense of YouTube monetization, and sensationalism is denounced.
In Antphrodite’s video, the victim is discursively made responsible for her murder, but the crime itself is barely introduced, in extremely awkward/technically wrong221, -but not sensational- wording. Antphrodite doesn’t use on-screen text; The overlay exhibits a disclaimer
214 (“naked”, “legs out straight and spread apart”, “the slits at the corners of her mouth were made while she was still alive.”).
215 See Fact-checking.
216 E.g. “GAVE HIM KNOWLEDGE OF A WIDE VARIETY OF SEXUAL LIVES”, “SHORT WOULD NOT SPEAK TO HIM, BUT HE WAS PERISTENT, AND SHE EVENTUALLY DID GET INTO HIS CAR”, etc.
217 For example, the coroner’s report on Short’s body indicates that “within the vagina and higher up there is lying loose a piece of skin with fat and subcutaneous tissue attached”, but such injuries are not mentioned at all in the video.
218 George Hodel is described as having “had sex with her *his daughter+ at the age of 14”, but the act is not described as “rape”, alleged or not.
219 E.g. “There are pictures but I’m not going to ruin your day, okay?”, giving a general viewer discretion warning at 3:53, etc.
220 See Fact-checking and Appendix.
221 (“she was brutally, allegedly murdered”, “it looked like she was precisely murdered”).
(“ALLEGEDLY, FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY”), and his social media handle (@antphrodite) for self-promotion. Moreover, sexual violence and abuse are not being discussed, but the victim’s sex-related behavior is discussed speculatively, in a manner that suggests she had agency over the scandalous behavior she was supposedly partaking in222. In reality, there is not enough information to indicate whether the omission of graphic details is related to an ideological stance on sensationalism, or not, but interestingly enough, the sensationalism of the original coverage of the Black Dahlia case is looked down on for portraying the victim in an overly positive (innocent) light.
In conclusion, graphic details may be left out, but the narrative is largely based on speculations about the victim’s sex life. The video analysis suggests that Antphrodite positions himself apart from sensationalist interpretations of the case, but his speculation-based take on the Black Dahlia could be a sensationalist interpretation by default. This fact brings attention to the difficulties of categorizing a non education- or work- type of theoretical background (psychic skill), since the latter inherently lacks the legitimacy which typically makes expert opinion less open to criticism. At the same time, even if a primary ethical concern against the way Antphrodite handles victim portrayal during his psychic reading has to do with exploitation, his position as content creator of True Crime material could be seen as de facto exploitative regardless of his psychic expertise. These complications will be further discussed in the Future Research Recommendations below.
When it comes to self-branding that overpowers the narrative at the expense of providing key information, in the Infotainment paradigm, the video is a well-thought-out product in terms of what marketable standardized presentation, host dynamic and “appropriate”
information constitute. Specifically, the video title and description follow a standardized format, the video content is self-referential (attention is drawn to other episodes of BuzzFeed Unsolved True Crime and even BuzzFeed Unsolved Supernatural), the hosts take on complementary roles and showcase antithetical personalities (this dynamic, which allows one
222 (“I think it’s someone who is in a relationship, perhaps married *…+ there’s definitely some sort of taboo relationship that she had”, “I’ll tell everyone that you had sex with me”, “girls that were prostitutes *…+ she was falling either adjacent to or directly in”, “You’re gonna want people to be seen as, like, perfect and flawless *…+
when really, there’s *…+ a lot of, like, sex, drugs, rock n’ roll”).