MM 38 - The London riots

London Riots 

How did the language and selection of images in the coverage create a particular representation of young people? 

Looking at the language selections it straight away shows that the representation of young people in the articles will be negative. One of the covers reads, "THE ANARCHY SPREADS" From this i straight shows that the article on this topic is going to negative. The word 'anarchy' means a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems. However when the London riots broke out there was police ( controlling system) on patrol. This shows an exaggeration of what had happened. 

The images that have been used also show a very negative portrayal of the youth, most of the images shows fire, youths with balaclavas on, on the road etc. All of these images connote negativity. The images have also been taken as a wide shot, showing the individual and whats behind them. This shows the damage and destruction that has been caused. 

Why does David Buckingham mention Owen Jones and his work Chavs: the demonisation of the working class?

He has mentioned Owen Jones, as in his book 'Chavs' he argues that the working class have become an object of fear and ridicule. This links in with the riots as in the media it showed that the rioters came from middle class families. 

What is the typical representation of young people – and teenage boys in particular? What did the 2005 IPSOS/MORI survey find?

coverage. A 2005 IPSOS/MORI survey found that 40% of newspaper articles featuring young people focused on violence, crime or anti-social behavior; 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.How can Stanley Cohen’s work on Moral Panic be linked to the coverage of the riots?

The coverage of the riots, shows teens causing havoc in the streets and damaging properties. As this was shown on the news and put on the front cover of most newspapers and all over the internet, it caused a 'moral panic'. Stanley Cohens theory is that a moral panic is caused when something is exaggerated in society, thus causing fear and leading to a folk devil (teens). This links in with the riots, as it was published to the world, thus giving society that all teenagers are like this, which led them to have a fear of teens.

What elements of the media and popular culture were blamed for the riots?

tabloids - the Daily Mirror, "the pernicious culture of hatred around rap music, which glorifies violence and loathing of authority (especially the police but including parents), exalts trashy materialism and raves about drugs." From this is it evident that tabloid newspapers are looking for excuses to put the blame on popular culture, such as rap videos, violent computer games, and reality TV. these are all aspects of media, these also fall into Cohens theory or moral panic. " Blaming the media is a common aspect of moral panics. In fact, there’s a very long history of the media being blamed for young people’s misbehavior, which can be tracked back from current concerns about video games or the internet to earlier fears about the influence of television and the cinema, to debates about music hall and popular literature in the nineteenth century. Perhaps the earliest example is the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, who proposed to exclude the dramatic poets from his ideal Republic on the grounds that they had a harmful influence on the young.

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 is to blame as the youths that took part in the riots, were using BBM (black beery messenger) and Facebook to communicate with one another. "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."

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 riots can be linked to the two - step flow theory as the two - step flow theory suggests that mass media messages and opinions are passed on to opinion leaders, then the opinion leaders along with their own interpretation and the actual content of the story pass the message on to whom they influence. 

Similarly with the riots when the news and newspapers released the story it became a big thing as they are the mass media. Then the stories were read and seen by most of England and when the elite groups (prime minister, big news organisations etc) talk about what has happened and why they think it has happened, people in society believe them. this makes that elite groups the opinion leaders and the society become the ones that are influenced. Also with social media, when big celebrities and well known people talk about what happens and how they feel about it, the general society that sees it, starts to believe in what they say, as they are respected and well known people in society. 
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?

Scholars like Henry Jenkins see this as a positive and they think that through the comments and blogs, it shows that it is democratic on line. I believe that it shows a democratic society to some extent as people can say how they feel and there aren't many restrictions. However some blogs and on line sites may have some restrictions that stop them from certain words or phrases.    

What were the right-wing responses to the causes of the riots?

Wave spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, unparented, welfare dependent, brutalised youngsters’. As this suggests, Hastings’ main target is ‘liberal’ (that is, left-wing) values, and particularly the idea of the welfare state: too much permissiveness, he argues, has bred a generation of young people with no respect for their elders and betters, and no ‘moral compass’. Such young people – by which Hastings primarily means working-class youth – apparently live lives of ‘absolute futility’:

What were the left-wing responses to the causes of the riots?

That it was unsurprising that most of the disturbances erupted in areas with high levels of poverty and deprivation – and, they point out, it was tragic that these communities also bore the brunt of the damage. More specifically, they point to the cuts in youth services (Haringey, the borough in which Tottenham is located, recently closed 8 of its 13 youth clubs), rising youth unemployment (which is now over 20% in the 18-25 age group) and the removal of the Education Maintenance Allowance. While these are valid arguments, they also appear to look only to youth as the cause.

What are your OWN views on the main causes of the riots?

Personally, I believe the riots were caused  for a number of different reasons, and the shooting of Mark Duggan being the spark to the fire. I believe that a lot of the youthes that took part of the riots were either part of a gang or they rioted due to boredom. The riots went down during summer holidays, when youths are out till late and they don't have a lot to do, they don't have jobs and as schools are on a break they get bored quickly. These are all aspects that allowed them to riot and loot, they needed an excuse to go out and chose havoc on the streets of London.  

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 blamed for the riots as it had influenced society to live in a materialistic society, where what you wear, the brands you own, and your wealth is important, furthermore in our society as kids grow up they are always taught that money is important, thus when the youths did riot they hit all/most of the high branded stores, as they have been taught that having these brands and showing that they have money is important. Thus when given the opportunity to go out and gain high branded clothes and items that will give you status in society, youths will take this chance.  

Were people involved in the riots given a voice in the media to explain their participation?

The people involved in riots were not given a voice, this is because if they had a chance to speak out people would get to know their reason to why they rioted and why they did what they did. From the mass media the society was told that a lot of the kids/youths that were involved in the riots were poor and uneducated individuals. However as the removal of EMA had such a large part to play in the riots, shows that a vast amount of the rioters were actually educated and they may have come from respected schools. However as they were never given a chance to speak out and say their side of the story, no body will ever know. 

Another reason to why the people involved weren't given a voice is because they would go against everything that is being said and shown in the mass media, and they would probably blame the government and the elite groups that play a part in society, and as this would not be acceptable they weren't given a chance to justify themselves. 

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?

Materialism - The youths that were asked said that it was simply down to opportunism, They said that, "a perceived suspension of normal rules presented them with an opportunity to acquire goods and luxury items they could not ordinarily afford" This shows that the youths looted the shops and rioted as they wanted goods that were expensive, due to living in a materialistic society.  

Lack of jobs, money, and opportunity - The candidates that were interviewed said that they rioted due to the fact that they didn't have jobs, there weren't enough opportunities for them, and they didn't have money. This all lead them to going out, rioting, and looting. What they are initially saying is that they had nothing to do, they didn't have any money and they were bored, and as there was a protest which lead to a riot they saw an opportunity to do something and get things that they couldn't afford, as they didn't have money.   

Police - The police were another reason that the rioters rioted, they said it wear merely anger and frustration because of how they treat people and because of what they did to Mark Duggan. 

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?

My opinion on the riots is that with what happened and how the youths dealt with it was wrong, the actions that they took and the chaos they caused was wrong and simply unacceptable. If they wanted to make a point they could have joined the protest, however looting, vandalizing properties and rioting is not the way to make a point, and even after they caused all of this, they didn't achieve anything things are still the same. 

I believe that a lot of the rioters saw the Mark Duggan shooting as an opportunity to go out and gain things that they wouldn't be able to usually afford. I think that there should be some sort of punishment that is given to the people that took part in the riots, as what they did was wrong and out of order.