The media coverage of the UK riots in 2011 provides a strong case study in the representation of young people and how identity is constructed in the media. Go to our Media Magazine archive, select MM38 and read the WHOLE eight-page feature. Answer the following questions on your blog with as many references to media theory and examples as possible.
1.How did the language and selection of images in the coverage create a particular representation of young people? The media represented young people as a group of hooligans and with complete disdain towards any authority such as the law or the police. All the youths invovled, were categorised under these same labels despite how diverse and large the group was. The newspapers consistently featured large, dramatic images of what the Daily Mirror called ‘young thugs with fire in their eyes and nothing but destruction on their mind’, or the Daily Express called simply ‘flaming morons’. This represented young people as dangerous, angry and unjustified in their actions. The spectre of the mob, of marauding gangs, of the violent underclass, has a long history; this only accentuated these traditional stereotypes. These young people were represented as having not been sufficiently socialised: they were presented as engaging in ‘childish destructiveness’. This represents them as being irrational, creating violence for no real reason. To refer to this 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. While we can apply Perkins theory of stereotypes and say that some of the stereotypes represented by the media, it can be argued that Medhurst's shorthand stereotyping theory is more applicable.
2.Why does David Buckingham mention Owen Jones and his work Chavs: the demonisation of the working class?
David Buckingham does this because Jones makes an interesting point about the way the working class are presented. Owen Jones wrote a book, where he argued that the working class has "become an object of fear and ridicule" which means that it was inevitable that the working class were going to be the ones mainly to blame for the riots. This is despite the fact that many of those who were convicted after the riots were in fact from "respectable middle-class jobs or from wealthy backgrounds."
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.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%). This suggests the typical representation of young people, specifically teenage boys, is very negative. They are represented as hooligans, violent and aggressive in nature. This is reinforced by how 13%). Many of the stories about teenage boys described them using disparaging words such as yobs, thugs, sick, feral, hoodies, louts, heartless, evil, frightening and scum.
4.How can Stanley Cohen’s work on Moral Panic be linked to the coverage of the riots?
What elements of the media and popular culture were blamed for the riots?
Stanley Cohen, author of a sociological study about youth culture and media called Folk Devils and Moral Panics, a moral panic occurs when a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests. This is linked to the coverage of the riots because of the way they represented the entire sitation - blowing it out of proportion. We can argue that the moral panic may have been appropriate and inapporpriate. In some cases, we can argue that the amount of damage caused, violence executed, and number/type of individuals involved is accurately represented through the media. However, we can also argue that the media may have reacted by exaggerating or distorting the level of threat posed.
5.How was social media blamed for the riots? What was interesting about the discussion of social media when compared to the Arab Spring in 2011?
The media and popular culture can be blamed for the riots. Popular culture created violence, through rap and video games provoking the youth to riot. The pictures of people looting resulted in free advertising that encouraged others to go outside and steal things for themselves.
6.The riots generated a huge amount of comment and opinion - both in mainstream and social media. How can the two-step flow theory be linked to the coverage of the riots?
The two-step flow model hypothesies that ideas flow from mass media to opinion leaders, and from them to a wider population. It was first introduced by sociologist Lazarsfeld et aland later elaborated on by Katz and Lazarsfeld. It was a theory that acted as a 'replacement' or 'update' of the hypodermic needle model. This links to the coverage of the riots because of the way people responded. The ideas that the 'opinion leaders' expressed in the papers was predominantly the idea that the youth and ethnic minorities were to blame for the violence. Moreover, anyone involved in the riots were unjustified - there was no justifiable cause for their actions. This subsequently led to consumers of the medium to either have negative opinions of anyone involved, leading to bias or added fuel to the fire. In other words, it angered those involved in the riots and resulted in further violence and aggression.
6b. 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?
there was a veritable tsunami of such commentary in the press, on the television and online. Scholars like Henry Jenkins tend to celebrate these kinds of ‘participatory’
media. He argues that the age of ‘Big Media’ – of powerful, centralised corporations controlling media – is now finished: hierarchical, top-down communications have been replaced by a more egalitarian approach.
7.What were the right-wing responses to the causes of the riots?
Dan Hind on Al Jazeera, argued that the government’s decision to bail out the banks was indicative of ‘a social and political order that rewards vandalism and the looting of public property, so long as the perpetrators are sufficiently rich and powerful’.
8.What were the left-wing responses to the causes of the riots?
Left-wing supporters such as Peter Oborne (writing, surprisingly enough, in the right-wing
Daily Telegraph) was one of many to make the link between the rioters and the bankers and
politicians. The rioting, he argued cannot be dissociated from the moral disintegration in the highest ranks of modern British society... It has become acceptable for our politicians to lie and to cheat... the sad young men and women, without hope or aspiration, who have caused such mayhem and chaos over the past few days... have this defence: they are just following the example set by senior and respected figures in society.
9.What are your OWN views on the main causes of the riots?
I personally have some doubt that people looting shops and capable of such extreme violence and potential harm to others saw themselves as being engaged in some kind of
political struggle. Their violence was unjustified and only few saw their engagement as an actual 'protest' and most people taking part were simply a result of the 'copycat effect'.
10.How can capitalism be blamed for the riots? What media theory (from our new/digital media unit) can this be linked to?
Like Peter Osborne said, he sees capitalism as the problem.He made the link between the rioters and the bankers and politicians. He feels that It has become acceptable for our politicians to lie and to cheat. The rioters were just following the example set by senior and respected figures in society. In the same vein, some commentators have pointed to the vandalism carried out by politicians such as David Cameron and Boris Johnson as young members of the Bullingdon Club at Oxford University; while others have pointed to the fact that Nick Clegg was convicted of arson in his youth – bringing the accusation of hypocrisy rather closer to home.
11. Were people involved in the riots given a voice in the media to explain their participation?
People involved in the riots were given a voice in that some were presented through interviews and many even on national television such as the BBC. However, the people featured in these interviews may not have been representative of the entire group involved in the riots. It is likely that those selected were picked with a sense of bias. Those interviewed were almost all presented in an anti-social, ultra violent manner. Moreover, almost all those interviewed were people of colour, working-class people typically with strong accents to emphasise their status. The participation of upper-class, white people was dismissed. None of these individuals were interviewed whatsoever.
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?
Social media is a significant factor. BlackBerry phones – and the free messaging service known as "BBM" – were used extensively to communicate, share information and plan riots in advance. Moreover, rioters identified a range of political grievances, but at the heart of their complaints was a pervasive sense of injustice. For some this was economic: the lack of money, jobs or opportunity. For others it was more broadly social: how they felt they were treated compared with others. Many mentioned the increase in student tuition fees and the scrapping of the education maintenance allowance. This explains why although mainly young and male, those involved in the riots came from a cross-section of local communities. Just under half of those interviewed in the study were students.
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?
I feel that the main factor behind why the riots happened is down to opportunism. Most people involved took advantage of what began as a peaceful protest for their own personal gain. The riots gave them an excuse to acquire goods and luxury items - simply society's greed and fixation on materialistic objects is to blame.
