Identities and the Media: Reading the riots
1) How did the language and selection of images in the coverage create a particular representation of young people?
Language and words such as ‘riots’ rather than, for example, ‘civil disturbances’ or ‘unrest’ – or even ‘uprisings’ or ‘protests’ – immediately defines the meaning of the events in particular ways. The word riot suggests something wild and unrestrained, something fundamentally irrational that cannot be explained. The riots, we were told, were simply an ‘orgy of brutality’, in which people appeared to lose all rational control. In particular, it’s interesting to look at how the participants were described. In most of the tabloid media coverage, the rioters were consistently and repeatedly identified as young people. These were the ‘feral youth’, the ‘hoodies’ and ‘yobs’ who apparently rampage uncontrolled in our cities, bent simply on destruction for its own sake. This was reinforced by the selection of images – and perhaps especially by the iconic image of one black, hooded young man which appeared on at least five front pages following the first day of the disturbances.
2)Why does David Buckingham mention Owen Jones and his work Chavs: the demonetisation of the working class?
There is obviously a class dimension to these representations. The ‘feral youth’ imagined by the politicians and the tabloid headline writers are implicitly working-class. In his recent book Chavs, Owen Jones points to the emergence of a new form of class contempt in modern Britain. The working class, he argues, has become an object of fear and ridicule, not just in this kind of media coverage. To some extent, race was also an issue – and it was certainly implicit in the media’s selection of images. Clearly, there was a racial dimension to the events that initially sparked the disturbances; but while many of those involved were black, a great many were not. The question of whether these were ‘race riots’ was hotly debated in the black press, although the issue of race was ignored or disavowed in much of the mainstream coverage, as if it were somehow too awkward to discuss.
3) What is the typical representation of young people – and teenage boys in particular? What did the 2005 IPSOS/MORI survey find?
A 2005 IPSOS/MORI survey found that 40% of newspaper articles featuring young people focused on violence, crime or anti-social behaviour; and that 71% could be described as having a negative tone. Research from Brunel University during 2006 found that television news reports of young people focused overwhelmingly either on celebrities such as footballers or (most frequently) on violent crime; while young people accounted for only 1% of the sources for interviews and opinions across the whole sample. More recently, a study by the organisation Women in Journalism analysed 7,000+ stories involving teenage boys, published in online, national and regional newspapers during 2008. 72% were negative – more than twenty times the number of positive stories (3.4%). Over 75% were about crime, drugs, or police: the great majority of these were negative (81.5%) while only a handful were positive (0.3%). Even for the minority of stories on other topics such as education, sport and entertainment, there were many more negative than positive stories (42% versus 13%).
4) How can Stanley Cohen’s work on Moral Panic be linked to the coverage of the riots?
Published in 1972, Stan Cohen analysed media coverage of an earlier generation of ‘riots’ – the pitched battles between gangs of mods and rockers (and the police) on beaches in the South of England in the mid-1960s. Cohen argues that the media talked up the disturbances into a bigger ‘moral panic’. Cohen also argues that the media play a role in ‘deviance amplification’: in reporting then phenomenon, and in expressing the fear and outrage of ‘respectable society’, they make it more attractive to those who might not otherwise have thought about becoming involved. None of this, of course, is to excuse the behaviour that took place this summer. Nor is it to suggest that it was harmless. The media did not simply misrepresent what happened, and ‘moral panics’ are not just irrational responses.
5) What elements of the media and popular culture were blamed for the riots?
In the tabloid press, much of the initial blame for the violence was put on popular culture: it was rap music, violent computer games or reality TV that was somehow provoking young people to go out and start rioting. Others suggested that the looting of sportswear shops had been inflamed by advertising – it was like Supermarket Sweep, said the Daily Mail; while images of looters posing for the cameras and displaying their pickings were seen as evidence of the narcissism and consumerism of the ‘Big Brother and X Factor generation’.
In this case, however, there was a new dimension in the form of social networking. Despite being depicted by tabloids as mindless thugs and morons, the rioters were also seen as somehow skillful enough to co-ordinate their actions by using Facebook, Blackberry and Twitter. The Sun, for example, reported that ‘THUGS used social network Twitter to orchestrate the Tottenham violence and incite others to join in as they sent messages urging: ‘Roll up and loot’. A very similar argument was used in media debates about the ‘Arab spring’ earlier this year: there was much discussion about the use of social networking in the revolutions that took place in countries such as Tunisia, Egypt and Syria – although in those instances, this was generally interpreted by the Western media as a positive thing. These observations in turn caused some – such as Tottenham MP David Lammy – to call for companies like Blackberry to suspend their services. Some even argued – quite absurdly –that the police might be empowered to ‘turn off the internet’ at the first sign of trouble.
The two step flow model is a model used in the media to look at how news/opinions reach the mass media. It starts from the news producers goes to opinion leaders and is then taken on by followers. A lot of people, especially different class groups saw the riots differently, for example the upper class who fit into the socio-economic group of ABC1 may have had different opinions on the riots and some of these people who may have been involved in journalism for newspapers would have shared this. People in the lower classified socio-economic groups like he C2DE's may have had different opinions on the riots and they may have shared this on sites like YouTube or would have been interviewed by news companies.
8) Alternatively, how might media scholars like Henry Jenkins view the 'tsunami' of blogs, forums and social media comments? Do you agree that this shows the democratisation of the media?
Henry Jenkins was one who "tends to celebrate this kind of participatory media". I do think that this is a good example of the democratisation of the media because people are free to post where and whatever they like, there is no institution producing the content on peoples personal blogs, however with any service on the internet there is always someone in control so i wouldn't say the people are totally free in there activities on the internet but they do have a certain degree of control which is a fundamental idea about democracy.
9) What were the right-wing & left wing responses to the causes of the riots?
The right wing responses mainly blamed youngsters and there lack of motivation and commitment to learning. an author for the daily mail gives his strong opinions on what he thinks about young people and in particular how they are amoral. The left wing response also looks at how young people were involved in the riots but it doesn't blame the youth directly, it blames the government for its cut backs and depriving the youth of community centres and the motivation for a full education.
11) What are your OWN views on the main causes of the riots?
The main cause of the riots isn't the most obvious thing in my opinion. The shooting started a chain reaction of all the anger and hatred that was building up to the government and police. The cuts by the the Tories and the police violence here and in America influenced people. They just needed a cause to revolt.
12) How can capitalism be blamed for the riots? What media theory (from our new/digital media unit) can this be linked to?
Capitalism can be considered to be the blame for the riots as the greedy elite may have
influenced the youth to act immorally as they themselves are often partaking in various immoral actions such as lying and cheating in order to gain power and wealth. The youth had no other reason to not riot, as they had nothing to lose. A theory that can be linked to the capitalism within the riots can be the theory of hegemony as the elite, upper class often construct, control and dominate the ideologies to make society believe and fall into the trap that they are normal, however the youth began to fight back against the hegemonic, traditional ideologies.
13) Were people involved in the riots given a voice in the media to explain their participation?
Participants in the riots were not given a fair opportunity to explain why or how the joined into the riots. Despite this, 3rd parties, like historians were able to explain the riots. This may have given some information, but for the society and citizens to get a more clear and honest view on the riots, there wouldn't have been a better way than to use a participant. One reason as to why some rioters may have not been given the opportunity is because they may aim to challenge the ideologies set by the elite.
14) In the Guardian website's investigation into the causes of the riots, they did interview rioters themselves. Read this Guardian article from their Reading the Riots academic research project - what causes are outlined by those involved in the disturbances?
Some of the causes outlines in the guardian article were: Social media wasn't used in significant way but BBM was used, Materialistic desires, Unemployment, Looting was down to opportunity, Political grievances, Gang members only played a marginal role
15) What is your own opinion on the riots? Do you have sympathy with those involved or do you believe strong prison sentences are the right approach to prevent such events happening in future?
In my opinion, I can understand why the youth rioted. I believe everyone has morals, but some get pulled into the thought that violence is the key to solving these issues. In fact, violence only makes them worse. I have sympathy in the aspect that these youths aren't been given a fair opportunity in order to succeed as there are continuously barriers put in place in order to make it harder for them. However, if they wish to become successful, they need to realise that violence and chaos won't get them anywhere.
Comments
Post a Comment