Future Representation Of Youths

Has representation of youths changed from the past to the present?

If you compare the way that the youths were seen at the time of Quadrophenia and the way are seen now, you will see both similarities and differences.
The similarities are:

• The youths all want to be part of a gang, in the time of Quadrophenia everyone was either a Mod or a Rocker, and this was decided by the clothes you wore, the music you listened to, the bike you were riding and the places you went to socialise in. In todays society you can see similar trends like this, with people being grouped into Indie, Goth and Chav to name 3, by the clothes they wear, music they listen to and where you socialise. 
• The parents of these youths never seemed to understand about what they were doing, for example in Quadrophenia Jimmy's dad asks him why he's wearing wet jeans, and calls him a freak. This shows the way that people who aren't part of this society, don't understand the things that they are doing. In the modern day riots, people couldn't understand what youths were doing. The parents of those rioting didn't know why they were rioting, and there were high profile celebrities who couldn't work it out. For example David Gilmour, guitarist and vocalist for Pink Floyd, spoke after his son was arrested for violent disorder, after throwing a fire extinguisher from the roof of an office block. He said he couldn't understand why he did this, and blamed the people he was surrounded by for 'influencing' him. 
• The people who were in these fore mentioned gangs wanted to challenge authority. In the 60s they all wanted to be individuals, challenging the authorities and do what they wanted, when they wanted. They wanted to ride around on their bikes, and if they seen someone from a rival gang, they wanted it so that they could beat them up, and smash up their bikes, without consequence. In the modern day, 2012, the young people in the council estates want to run their estates, with the police not coming anywhere near, let them sort out their own problems. There are areas in London where even the Police fear to go, and this is where the youths have successfully challenged authority and won. 

The differences are:

• In the 60s the gangs would organise things using word of mouth, or if they had a home telephone through that, but then would have to stick to their plans, making them reasonably easy to intercept for forces like the police, and this meant that the crime rates were able to be lowered by preventing the crimes before they got out of hand. In 2012 there is BBM, Twitter, MSN and Facebook to organise, all of which can be taken on the move with iPhone and BlackBerry, and can then organise quickly, and crucially, discreetly, if they feel that something needs to be changed or to halt it altogether to avoid an unwelcome confrontation.

Will the Representation of Youths Change?

After the riots a lot of young people have done things to change the way that they are perceived in the media, setting up projects, webpages and peaceful protests to try and get papers like the Daily Mail to stop on printing negative things about them. They have set up websites like Truth About Youth and the 99% Blog. These are websites that people can look at to see what the young people are doing in the communities, and it is a way to see that they are not all the looting, violent thugs that the mass media would like you to believe they were. This is the sort of things that youths can do to change their representation and could help them in the future, with the way the country's economy is. Also they set up things on sites like Facebook and Twitter, which helped to set up clean up operations, and to set up marches against the rioters. 

However as all of the good things are going on there are still bad, which the media are always quick to pick up on. When they are doing things like thieving from injured Malaysian students or beating up old men for small change, this makes their representation even worse than it was before. jCombine this with those who were arrested during the riots, those who go out binge drinking every night and those who are portrayed in TV Shows and in the mass media, and it seems unlikely that they will ever get a better representation in the press, or in the eyes of those looking on. 

Plan B (Ben Drew, 28) Analysis

Does the video fuel negative representations of youth collective identities? Or does the video attempt to change the views?

In the whole it shows the youths in a negative light. Some of the images it uses make it impossible for others to see the people in these communities as anything other than trouble. It shows them looting flat screen TVs, beating up and filming other youths and intimidating old women, these are definitely negative things to show these people doing. It doesn't really try to change the views of the youths, as there isn't any footage in it to say that they are actually doing something positive. For example, it could of showed the youths who were helping to clean up the streets after the riots, but instead it showed angry clashes with the police force and them fire-bombing cars, whilst talking about shanking, slang term for slashing someones throat, and mugging. 

What textual examples are there in the video to show the collective identity of youths?

In the video you can see many things that could show the ideas that people would have about young people. These can be:

• Hanging around on council estates in gangs, intimidating people who aren't associated and in one scene beating up someone who gets too close to him.
• In the scene where it is building towards the chorus and the young people look bored, and end up throwing a petrol bomb at an empty car, even though there doesn't seem to have been any sort of provocation. 
• At the beginning of the video it shows a group of young men, walking down what we assume was a London street, with their hoods up and face covered, fuelling the idea that these people don't want to be recognised by the other public. 
• It also shows the young people from the council estate clashing with riot police, throwing glass bottles, petrol bombs and anything else they can find, in an attempt to drive the authorities away.
• It shows again the gang culture when they were in what looked like a multi-storey car park, beating up two young people, with dogs, whilst videoing it on their mobile phones.
• 
  

Are there any instances in the video where those in authority are abusing their power?

In the video it shows a Police Officer pushing over a man, even though the provocation, if any, is minimal and there is no proper reason for doing it. This shows that even the Police, the people who run our country's streets, have given in to the idea that the all youths should be tarred with the same brush, thinking that because they are in the area of trouble, they must be involved. This is similar to the historical issue we looked at, in Quadrophenia. After Jimmy and Steph sneak off, and then come back into a street, the police grab them and throw Jimmy in the back of a van, because he was wearing a Parka and was with the other 'Mods'.

What was Plan B trying to challenge through his video?

Plan B seemed to be trying to challenge the idea that the youths involved in the riots didn't do it because they were hardened criminals who wanted to steal as much as possible, it was because they had nothing to do, and felt that they were being preyed on by the police and government. As fore mentioned the police seemed to just want to 'get' some of the young people in these areas, so it looked as though their presence at these riots had been a success. It did show them stealing TVs and getting into fights, bu this again was because they were driven to it. It is like when Drew says that the young people in these areas are like animals, they are backed into a corner and they lash out, it is a primal instinct, he says.  

What does Plan B try to achieve through both his song and his film?

He said that he doesn't agree with the riots, but that he feels that the people who were involved in them should be highlighted, so that they can be helped, and shown that there is a better way to live than this. This could be what he is trying to get across in the video, and film he is making to highlight these things in the future.

Plan B - ill MANOR Video Analysis

This video by multi genre artist, film director and actor Plan B (Real name Ben Drew) and is for a song called ill MANOR.

Lyrics


Its lyrics show what many of the looters would of had, using lyrics like 'You can't put us all in prison' which reflects the idea that many people had, that the riots wer caused by the country having a failed Penal System. Another lyric is 'who closed down the Community Centre' with this reflecting the idea that some of the looters that were previously interviewed gave, they had nothing to do. It also reflects the gang culture of the communities who allegedly took part in these riots. It uses the words 'People get stabbed round here there's many shanks, nice knowing someones got your back when you get attacked'. This shows the culture of the gangs and the violence which is shown in these places.

Video


In the video there are many images that would reflect the ideas that people would of had about the people involved in the riots, it shows you the young people in communities, staying near their flats, drinking and attacking passers by. At one point it shows you people being beat up, and a teenage girl filming it all on her phone, showing again the impact that social media could have on these communities and the riots in particular. It is also showing what seems to be the main pictures of the riots, burning cars and makes this a big part of the video. When the song is coming back into the chorus at the end it shows a shot of a fire bomb being thrown into a car, in slow motion, in time with the music.

Plan B (Ben Drew) Opinion


In an interview with Radio 1Xtra he made these points:

• He doesn't agree witht the riots, he just feels that the people who were involved in them should be highlighted, so that they can be helped, and shown that there is a better way to live than this.
• He believes that the riots will not help these communities, it will make them worse, as peoples perceptions, which were already bad, could now be confirmed.
• There is now a divide between the adult middle classes, with those in government believing that they are better than those they are governing. 
• The words CHAV and YOB are used to much, and are taken too lightly in the media, and should be used less as it is possible that it could be as serious as racism and sexism, which you wouldn't ever see in the newspapers. 
• He also believes that having money and paying for an education is not an excuse to think that you are better than someone else, and certainly doesn't give you a right to judge people, after only seeing one side of them. 
• He compares all people to animals, who, when backed into the corner lash out, he calls it a primal instinct and he believes that this is what happened in causing the riots. He says that the people in the 'poorer' communities were oppressed and were pushed back and back and eventually it provoked a reaction, the rioting and looting. 
• He says that it is up to the people in the communities to change the perceptions made about them, by the things they do and the way that they act, especially when there is a spotlight on them, whether it be from the government, the police or other power. 

As you can see in what he says in that interview, and what is in the lyrical content, he is trying to get under the skins of the middle class and those in government, trying to provoke a reaction from them, like they did to the affected communities. 

Social Media, London Riots and Representation Of Youths

How far were the responses of the rioters themselves given space in the media?

When the TV Crews for news channels went out they usually went and talked to the adults at the scene, getting their opinion, and not that of those who were taking part in the rioting. It talked to people who were in a position of power, for example David Lammy MP and Mayor of London Boris Johnson. This meant that they couldn't get a full picture, as those adults in a position of power may all have the same ideas, so this would be the only one that BBC/ CNN and ITV News portrayed.

Given the general framing of young people as the key participants in the events, how much space was given to young peoples voices - and what sort of young people were given space to respond in the media debates?

As mentioned above the young people who were given press coverage were kept to a minimum, with the broadcasters preferring to interview MPs and Mayors, or get the reaction of shopkeepers. In regard to the type of people who were interviewed, they tended to choose people who could hardly string a sentence together, or who's every other word was a swear word, getting rid of the people who had a valid point to get across, as in this video. This helped to portray the ideas that the news wanted them to, with the young people involved in the riots being illiterate thugs who were opportunist and took what they wanted because they could.

To what extent did social media challenge or confirm representation of youth identity in the mass media during the time of the London Riots?


A lot of the newspapers seemed to condem the young people involved in the riots before there was any sort of investigations into the sources of it, and the actual percentages of people who were there, as you can see below. This meant that they got a negative press straight away, which then reflected Stanley Cohens theory that the Mass Media can create Moral Panics, through portraying these Folk Devils in a wholly negative light. However some of this media did portray some of the youth in a good light, highlighting the clean up operations and trying to make it plain that there were some young people who were doing good and not trying to destroy their communities or burning anything that stayed still for more than 30 seconds. You can also apply David Gauntlet in this case, as he says that identities are not given, but negotiated and constructed. Although the general mass media had decided on their opinion of the youth who were taking part in the riots, their opinions were changed and then moulded to fit in with what the youths were doing at the time. This has always happened, with one day them saying how terrible the youths were, wearing hoodies and mugging pensioners, but then the next day how great they were for helping to clean up communities and setting up youth projects. It is difficult because of the oligopoly in the media, with few companies having much to say, which only really gives you 1 or 2 messages.

Questions To Answer

1. Overview of Contemporary Case Study.
- What were the context of the riots?
- What were the reasons given as to why youths were involved in the riots?
- Were youths given a fair and unbiased representation in the press coverage of the riots?

2. Applying Theory
- How can the coverage of the London riots be understood in relation to the ideas of Stan Cohen
- David Gauntlett stated that 'Identities are not given, but are constructed and negotiated'
- From the research which you have conducted into the coverage of the London Riots, to what extent is the representation of the collective identity of youths constructed by the press? Consider FOR and AGAINST arguments.

Newspaper Reports On London Riots

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4167254/Two-guilty-of-London-riots-mugging-that-shocked-nation.html - This is a recent news report about two rioters in London, who are both young men, have been charged after pretending to be 'Good Samaritans'  but were actually stealing from another young man, who was a Malaysian Student. It uses sensationalist language like 'attack that shocked the nation' to make it seem like a huge issue. The images that it used showed a still from the video, which was posted on video hosting website YouTube, and the pictures of the two men convicted in 'mug-shot' style photos, like the police would have taken when they first arrested them.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8630533/Riots-the-underclass-lashes-out.html - This is a news report that seems to reflect the sort of attitude that a lot of middle and upper class people would have of the riots, with the headline being 'The Underclasses Lash Out'. This seems like quite an unfair report as there was no solid evidence to suggest that it was only working class people partaking in the riots, and the people who wrote the report seem to have stereotyped the people in the places where the looting happened. It uses the line 'Urban War Zone' to make it seem as though this was a fiercely fought battle between the working class and those in power e.g. the police or the government.

Representation Of Youth

David Gauntlet - 'Ideas are not given, but are constructed and negotiated'.

06/08/11 - The first sings of a 'riot' was in Tottenham and Tottenham Hale.
07/08/11 - By 19:45 they had escalated and there were news reports of 100 hooded youths gathering around the Police Station and a mob was reported. The headline on the news footage says LONDON VIOLENCE and the reporters are saying 'police are powerless' and are talking about the violence 'erupting'.

08/08/11 - 23:20 - there is violence in Nottingham is reported and at 23:27 There is further reports of rioting in London in the TESCO stores, and this is where the infamous Basmati Rice picture was taken.

09/08/11 - The Fire Brigade faced its busiest night in recent history, with fires springing up all over the country, especially in London. At 09:55 the friendly match between England and the Netherlands, which was scheduled for the following night, was called off, due to security fears. At 11:06 David Cameron makes his first official statement about the riots.

These are some of the news articles that were reported during the riots:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53XnvNOR5EU - This news report was on behalf of Russia Today, making it seem as though this has evolved from a peaceful protest into a criminal act which the whole world sat up and looked at. The reporter at first is stood in front of the crime scene, talking about the riots in general, and then goes onto interview members of the public who are at the heart of their communities and felt that they were in a position to speak about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIYnZW7EIWE&NR=1&feature=fvwp - this news report was for another foreign broadcaster, showing again how big this 6 day event was seen, both by the British and those overseas. They use the headline 'London's Burning'. This headline and the following ones using words like violence, looted and ablaze, makes it all seem sensational and making it, possibly, bigger than it really should of been.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qEjDjtujaQ - this was a British news report on the 07/08/11, just after the riots happened. It interviews David Lammy MP, a man in power, who can have a direct effect on what can happen through Parliament, which makes him a person of responsibility. It shows you footage of the police lining up, and the youths who were rioting on the other side, as if they were two armies, waiting to attack. The reporter who is doing the voiceover calls one of the streets a battleground, making it seem less of a riot, and more of a war.