The language and images used by the media mainly to portray young people as the violent, aggressive, selfish people who don't care about anything but themselves with the media labelling them as Chavs.
Why does David Buckingham mention Owen Jones and his work Chavs: the demonisation of the working class?
David Buckingham mentioned Owen Jones and his work due to this story heavily relating to the type of philosophy that Owen Jones believes in. During the London Riots the class divide has never been so clear which is why referencing Owen Jones work made sense to talk about.
What is the typical representation of young people – and teenage boys in particular? What did the 2005 IPSOS/MORI survey find?
The survey results came out with 40% of all news stories involving youth were related to violence, crime or anti-social behaviour. Also 71% could be interpreted as having a negative tone. So representation of a young person was violent, anti social and a future criminal.
How can Stanley Cohen’s work on Moral Panic be linked to the coverage of the riots?
In relation to moral panic the reaction from the newspapers passively made the general public all have a negative outlook on the youth demographic just by using so incriminating images a bold headlines.
What elements of the media and popular culture were blamed for the riots?
The platform the media always blamed for misbehaviour is violent video games because they believe every person who plays video games is going to become a violent socio-path. Also they blamed Rap music for being aggressive and reality TV.
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?
Rioters would use social media like Facebook, Twitter and BBM to communicate and locate the next area they were going to "protest" which is a very similar technique that they used in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria.
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?
With politicians having so much power due to their opinions and believe the general public can be easily fooled to believe whatever crazy philosophy that any politician believe in which is where the two step flow theory comes into effect with them voicing their opinion and the general public copying that opinion like sheep.
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?
The tsunami of blogs highlight how a lot of people are still not easily manipulated by the over powering newspaper companies with blogs siding with the rioters which wouldn't be a mainstream view.
What were the right-wing responses to the causes of the riots?
Blaming the riots on the youth inability to get a job, having a lack of education, describing them as "wild beast", and using the recent cuts as an excuse to riot in the first place.
What were the left-wing responses to the causes of the riots?
High unemployment, highest level of poverty in recent years and the removal of the the education maintenance allowance lead to the London Riots.
What are your OWN views on the main causes of the riots?
I believe that the London Riots were a combination of the murder of Mark Duggan and the police lashing out at the innocent protesters that just wanted to get their voice heared leading to the London Riots with people in poverty leaching on to this opportunity of chaos and decided to go absolutely crazy.
Were people involved in the riots given a voice in the media to explain their participation?
No the rioters didn't get a voice because of the fact that they got their opinion of modern day society with the riots itself and also the fact that newspapers were never going to side with the rioters it would lead to bad business and newspapers need all the business they can get.
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?
Details of the research findings, which are also based on an analysis of an exclusive database of more than 2.5m riot-related tweets, will be unveiled in a series of reports over the next five days. Monday's findings include:
•Many rioters conceded that their involvement in looting was simply down to opportunism, saying that a perceived suspension of normal rules presented them with an opportunity to acquire goods and luxury items they could not ordinarily afford. They often described the riots as a chance to obtain "free stuff" or sought to justify the theft.
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 don't believe any of does actions to be honest, the London Riots were an anomaly a case where a bunch of bad things happening all at the same time that all related to youth population get screwed again leading to an event like this. I don't sympathies with the rioters because they had an message to begin with but it lead to just mindless rioting without a message but I don't believe making the prison sentence longer is a good thing either because of the fact that something like this will properly never happen again or at least not like this.
No comments:
Post a Comment