Identities and the Media: Reading The Riots

How did the language and selection of images in the coverage create a particular representation of young people?
Language such as the "feral youth", the "hoodies", and "yobs" paired alongside the image of "one black, hooded young man which appeared on at least five front pages" created a very negative representation of young people. The representation created by the coverage showed the youth to be destructive who don't care about anything and just give in to these primal urges.

Why does David Buckingham mention Owen Jones and his work Chavs: the demonisation of the working class?
Owen Jones points to emergence of a new form of class contempt. He argues that the working class have become an object for fear and ridicule and are being targeted by the media, despite the fact that most of those convicted after the riots were actually from respectable middle-class jobs, or wealthy backgrounds.

What is the typical representation of young people – and teenage boys in particular? What did the 2005 IPSOS/MORI survey find?
The typical representation of young people - and teenage boys in particular - is, the vast majority of the time, negative. The 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.

How can Stanley Cohen’s work on Moral Panic be linked to the coverage of the riots?
It can be argued that the coverage of the riots were perhaps misrepresented to reflect a much more general fear of young people (and especially of working-class young people); a view that is already held by many of the adults of Britain's society. You can also argue that media talked up the disturbances into a bigger 'Moral Panic'.

What elements of the media and popular culture were blamed for the riots?
Rap music, violent computer games, and reality TV were blamed for provoking young people to go out and start rioting. It was also suggested that the looting of sportswear shops were inflamed by advertising.

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?
Social media was blamed for allowing rioters to co-ordinate their actions. Twitter was heavily mentioned as many rioters were telling others to "roll up and loot". Blackberry's messaging system was also mentioned: Being described as a "communications tool for high-flying executives", "gang members" used this to organise the mayhem. However, social media and technology was seen in a much more positive light during the "Arab Spring". Would there need to be a dictatorship and, subsequently, revolution in Britain for social media to be seen as a good thing? Or is it just one more thing the media is trying to put the blame to keep the masses' eyes away from the more important issues.

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? 
As the riots were covered and people saw this coverage, opinions were being formed about the events happening. These opinions caused their comments to be altered, and influenced, into a somewhat biased comment. When these influenced comments are plastered all over the internet, the rest of the audience will read these comments - from the 'opinion leaders' - and become influenced themselves. This fuels a circle in which most of the audience becomes encapsulated in a biased opinion-influenced comment, and anyone with an alternative opinion or comment is immediately disregarded and shot down.

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?
Jenkins thinks that the convergence of media should be understood as a cultural process, and not a technological end-point. Also, I think that this does show more democratisation in the media as the masses now a anonymous point-of-access; in which they can show their views and have freedom of expression. However, this has resulted in people taking advantage of this by trying to cause offence. Trolling has also formed as a part of this as there can be no backlash due to anonymity.

What were the right-wing responses to the causes of the riots?
The right-wing response to the cause of the riots was to blame 'liberal', left-wing values and , particularly, the idea of a welfare state. Max Hastings of the Daily Mail said ‘Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, unparented, welfare dependent, brutalised youngsters’. Right-wingers have also blamed schools specifically for failing to instil discipline and respect for authority.

What were the left-wing responses to the causes of the riots?
The left-wing response to the cause of the riots was to blame poverty and deprivation. They also point to the cuts in youth services, rising youth unemployment, and the removal of the Education Maintenance Allowance.

What are your OWN views on the main causes of the riots?
I think that a lack of guidance from a young age mixed in with the media itself constantly showing the youth in a negative light has caused these people act out. Being told that you're good for nothing and having services to help you cut, as well as the influence of gang culture (drugs and alcohol come into this) can make for a very amoral youth. If no-ones helping you when you need it, then why would you stay quiet when something s happening to your community or to someone you know or love. However, it doesn't help when people who are doing for the fun of it start to join in. That defeats the purpose of acting out.


How can capitalism be blamed for the riots? What media theory (from our new/digital media unit) can this be linked to?
Many made the link between the riots and capitalism. If politicians or executives can lie, cheat and bribe their way to the top of the hierarchy, then why can't the less-privileged working-class do the same. Due to the materialistic society we live in, we see our possessions as defining our worth in society (of course our jobs and backgrounds come into this as well), so when an opportunity arises where we can steal goods to raise our worth,we take it. This can be linked to the theory of hegemony; where the corporate elite try to keep the power by manipulating the media and keep the class divide.

Were people involved in the riots given a voice in the media to explain their participation?
Many people were not given a voice as this would challenge the representation already established by the media. This comes back to Marxism as the elite was to keep control of what is being shown and said in the media so they can control and influence the opinions of the masses.

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?


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 can understand why those who acted out did so, but it's still inexcusable. A man died and a teenager was assaulted by police at a peaceful protest. But that doesn't mean you should go and steal a TV from your local ASDA! Also, people died during the riots and many people were harmed in some way. And for what? So you get those trainers you couldn't afford from Footlocker. I can sympathise with that minority who were actually standing up for what they believed in, but those who just took advantage of the situation are the reason why the media portrays the youth in such a negative light. It can be argued that because of this negative portrayal, that these people took advantage of the situation. But, then that just fuels the media even more and thus becomes this vicious cycle in which will probably end in another riot. Its like the question: What came first, the chicken of the egg (although scientists did prove in 2010 that the chicken came first)? Lastly, I think that strong prison sentences isn't the right approach. I think providing these youth-specific services again will help to keep them on the right track.

Marxism And Pluralism Essay

The development of new/digital media means the audience is more powerful in terms of consumption and production. Discuss the arguments for and against this view.

A Marxist perspective would argue that the mass media are a tool used by the corporate elite (or ruling bodies) to maintain hegemonic control over the masses and a class divide system. It is believed audiences are put under the illusion that they have choice. Consumption and production are two of the main points in which they indeed have no choice, but only think they do. An argument, in terms of consumption, is the dumbing down of media. An example to support my argument is Radio 1's Newsbeat. Radio 1 took a sophisticated and intellectual news segment, and transformed it into a fragment of what it was. Designed to appeal to a much younger audience (mostly teens), this now slice of news has shown that the institutions are trying to control what the masses are seeing, reading and hearing. In terms of production, an argument can be made that audiences have more power through the use of e-media, however, the hegemonic values that have been instilled into society have had a great impact. This is when the status-quo stays the same as power is kept within the elite corporations. Furthermore, any alternative opinions to the popular are quickly disregarded as the same values and opinions are forced upon the audience everywhere. Audiences don't challenge these values as they have been formed for them. A theorist that supports this argument is 'Pareto's Law'; Pareto argues that 20% of the corporations control and distribute 80% of the news.  Lastly, a domination of class has been fostered considering that the elite want each class to stay as it is. Any disruption in class would change the status quo that been put in place.

On the other hand, a Pluralist perspective would argue that new media has allowed audiences a great deal of opportunity, equality. and freedom of speech. This could be through the use of social media or even user-generated content (UGC). In terms of consumption, it can be argued that media corporations provide what the audience want to see and hear. The media provides the different types or genres of news from which we, as the audience, can pick and choose from. An example of pluralist values showing in the news are the riots in Ferguson. Social media was the basis for which these riots started and were being covered. Sites such as Twitter and Reddit showed exactly what was happening as the riots occurred. In terms of production, audiences are able to produce whatever content they like to be distributed amongst sites such as YouTube and Facebook. This democratisation of self-expression lets audiences make and look at what they want. These new opportunities let us argue there is no social divide any more, however, this is not the case. If content is deemed to be unsuitable, then it is removed. To be put simply, we are still being regulated.

Marxism and Pluralism - To what extent...

Developments in new/digital media mean that audiences can now have access to a greater variety of views and values.  To what extent are audiences empowered by these developments?

Developments in new/digital media mean that audiences are both empowered and dis-empowered. I believe due to the nature of new media, audiences can become empowered by being able to voice their opinion online, be it with their name attached or anonymously. A great example is social media; such sites as Facebook and Twitter allow the general public to say what they like and don’t like about certain news stories. This can be linked to the two-step flow as most people are forming their opinions about a specific story under opinion leaders, who are, in turn, being influenced by the mass media. However, opinion leaders’ views can be slightly biased as their own opinions can come into the views they are imparting onto the rest of the public. An example of social media empowering audiences could be the story with Sky News presenter Martin Brunt. After he had exposed a woman who he had believed to be ‘trolling’ the McCann’s, he himself received online abuse after the woman in question committed suicide. A Facebook group calling for Brunt to be sacked had 1,800 likes. He also received many vicious messages on Twitter. This can be seen as society becoming pluralist as the power can be seen as being shared.

Furthermore, audiences can become empowered through Citizen Journalism (UGC). UGC allows the audience to become a part of the making of the news. This can definitely give the audience a sense of empowerment as they feel they are helping to educate the public on matters by giving a first-hand view of the event. This also helps the audience as they are seeing what has actually happened and not what is inferred by a journalist. An example of this is the LA riots in 1991 as a result of police brutality being caught on film by George Holliday. This is an example of power being shared among the people as the masses rose up (although violence is not something I’m trying to justify) to protest an issue that would normally go unseen.

On the other hand, it can be argued that audiences are not empowered as Marxists would insist. A Marxist would argue that all the power that is seen to be given to the audience is an illusion by the corporate elite. An example of this is the Ian Tomlinson case where a bystander had recorded evidence of a police officer enforcing brutality whereby the victim would later on die. The officer involved was not charged for manslaughter and just sacked from his job. As the police can be considered to be part of these elite, nothing has been done against them in this case as they have more power.

To continue, audiences are being dis-empowered through the dumbing down of media. This could be to control what the audiences are seeing and hearing, so their decisions can be influenced to benefit the media elite. An example of this is Radio 1’s Newsbeat. They changed their serious and informative news section into a much shorter and more teen/kid-friendly, with the addition of games, segment. This shows that they changed their news values to suit a younger audience to bring in a larger audience. It can be argued that through the dumbing down of media, this hegemony allows the elite to keep the power through a non-physical means.

Article #7

How social networking is changing journalism

A conference in Oxford explores the interaction between the internet and the news industry. Richard Sambrook, the director of the BBC Global News Division, said that the "impact of social media was overestimated in the short term and underestimated in long term". He said mainstream media are adopting social media especially with blogging and twitter, but nobody discusses the effects on the long term. Sambrook thinks that organisations don't own the news any more. "There is a transformation for the journalist from being the gatekeeper of information to sharing it in a public space", he added that citizen journalism, therefore, is something that has to be taken in account.

I agree with Sambrook with the short/long term. I think that platforms such as Twitter and blogging are being used more than ever and it's providing more and more opportunities for citizen journalism. It can be argued that this will be the cause for less journalism, but Sambrook was optimistic in the fact that "Journalism will stay". He thinks that journalism adds to what is essentially just information: "Journalism needs discipline, analysis, explanation and context, he pointed out, and therefore for him it is still a profession. The value that gets added with journalism is judgement, analysis and explanation - and that makes the difference."

News Values and How They've Changed

How have each of these news values changed with the rise in New and Digital Media?

Immediacy: has it happened recently?
Social Media has allowed us to see news stories much quicker than before. This may have also made specific news stories more featured than would be beforehand. Also, it can be argued that news has become more of an industry akin to fashion, in the sense that stories can become quickly buried as social media is always looking for the next big breaking story.

Familiarity: is it culturally close to us in Britain?
New and Digital Media has allowed globalisation. Technology has allowed the audience to access stories that don't necessarily have to be happening in Britain for them to be interested.

Amplitude: is it a big event or one which involves large numbers of people?
Smaller events which would not normally be in the spotlight can become bigger events due to digital media. Also, with the rise in UGC, an event can be become national (or even worldwide) just because of a bystander. A good example of this is the LA Riots in 1991 with Police Brutality.

Frequency: did the event happen fairly quickly?
With New Media, events can become archived and forgotten about fairly quickly. But, due to this nature of the internet, it allows us to access stories that could have happened 5 weeks ago or 5 years ago.

Unambiguity: is it clear and definite?
Social Media can distort the original message of the story as people's own opinion can influence what they write. However, the internet can now provide multiple sources (blogs, comment boards, multiple online news websites) for stories if the original isn't clear enough.

Predictability: did we expect it to happen?
Stories expected to happen can still be researched by professional journalists. However, breaking stories that aren't expected are helped by online media. A great example is the recent shooting in Ottawa. People who were locked down in the building where it happened were on websites such as Reddit explaining what has happened so far and trying to get messages out there.

Surprise: is it a rare or unexpected event?
The internet allows surprising stories to be shown the the general population. This can, in turn, come to broadcast as this could bring more online users to other platforms.

Continuity: has this story already been defined as news?
News institutions have to come from different approaches is a news broke out online first. An example can be when a well-known celebrity dies. Twitter would be ablaze well before something can be printed or broadcast. Therefore, the newspaper may write a story looking back at the life of the celebrity.

Elite nations and people: which country has the event happened in? Does the story concern well-known people?
Social Media can allow stories in less elite nations to be put in the spotlight, but we still like to focus on bigger nations like the U.S. or Britain.

Negativity: is it bad news?
Reporting on controversial news can be bad at times. Especially when the topic in question is very complicated and cannot be easily explained. An example can be the war between Israel and Palestine. It's a topic which institutions can't biased to one side, therefore it isn't covered unless something very major happens.

Balance: the story may be selected to balance other news, such as a human survival story to balance a number of stories concerning death.

I feel institutions might have less control over the balance of stories as they can't control what's being shown on twitter or even most other social media sites. Therefore, corporations have to think more about what's being discussed and what to cover.

Article #6

Spain moves to protect domestic media with new 'Google tax'

Spain moves to protect domestic media with new 'Google tax':content aggregators such as Google News, in an effort to protect its print media industry."

The "Google Tax" means that whenever an online service posts a link to a news article. That service is required to pay a fee to the organisation representing Spanish newspapers. Failure to pay could mean a fee of up to €600,000.

As said in the article, I think this is just another form of censorship. Because who would risk €600,000 to post a link?

Article #6

Spain moves to protect domestic media with new 'Google tax'

Spain moves to protect domestic media with new 'Google tax':content aggregators such as Google News, in an effort to protect its print media industry."

The "Google Tax" means that whenever an online service posts a link to a news article. That service is required to pay a fee to the organisation representing Spanish newspapers. Failure to pay could mean a fee of up to €600,000.

As said in the article, I think this is just another form of censorship. Because who would risk €600,000 to post a link?