Ill Manners Song

After watching the video and listening to the Plan B interview on BBC 1 Extra consider the following:

- Does the video fuel negative representations of youth collective identity? Or does the video and lyrics together attempt to challenge these negative views?

i dont think that this video/song fuels the negative representations of youth collective identity as it is done in a satirical manner however to an ignorant party it could be reinforce the negative image that they believe youths are. The lyrics 'fuel the fire, let it burn' has a boy on a bike with a firework  dressed in a hoodie and black reinforces this 'thug' image that people seem to have of these 'chavs'. However this is not what he is saying he means that the more that society abandons these youths the more they turn into these gang members a sort of surrogate family. The more they turn to the gangs the more violence will occur as they try to survive this hypocritical society.

Our society is a plutocratic one, where those with wealth thrive and those without find it survive. Yet somehow it is those without the wealths fault that our society is collapsing with youths at the helm or so the media would have you believe.


- Can you offer textual examples of how young people are represented in the video?

Some examples of how young people are represented in the video are as typical crimminals and thugs. He showed them how they were represented in th newspapers as mindlesss violent adolesances.  He shows thme how sociecty views them fighters, thieves, drug dealers and addicts who live for themselves and could not care about the rest of society and what their actions cause for the outter world. He shows that they do not respect their elders nor anyone other than people who are in the higher 'gang' chain.

- Are there any instances in the video which show authority abusing their power?


- What was Plan B trying to challenge through his lyrics and video for iLL Manors?


- What does Plan B hope to achieve through his music and film?

London Riots Summerry

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

Given the general framing of young people as the key participants in the events, how much space was given to young peoples’ voices

From the research i conducted about the youth image during the london riots i found that there were next to no interviews with youths just peoples opinions on them. As the youths were not able to defend themselves nor give there side of the story this just reinforced the stereotypes given. People/reporters all gave their views on the youths that they thought were right and of course being of the older generation  they always have to be right regardless of what is actually right. I think that it is disgusting that the youths are being basically slandered without being given the chance to defend themselves. Without asking them we will never know why they became involved to such a point and why this voilent crime wave escalated beyond all expectations.

   What sorts of young people were given space to respond in the media debates?

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

•       Discuss the positive and negative.

•       Use examples and theory to illustrate your argument.

On the other hand social media greatly challenged the reputations of youth identity in the mass media during the time of the London riots.  After the riots people tool to different forms of social media such as twitter (@RIOTCLEANUP) and Facebook (Riot Clean Up) many of these people were youths and were disgusted and distressed at the happenings in their city so rounded up people to go to the streets and clean up all the mess. All so there was a Facebook campaign Not in my name which was people taking pictures of themselves holding a sign saying not in my name. All of these people wanted to disassociate themselves with the youths during the riots, they didn't feel that it was fair that they were assumed to be the same when in fact they are all different

Context of the London Riots

1)          What was the context of the riots?

The London riots began the 6^th August 2011 due to Mark Duggan being shot dead by police during a peaceful protest. The unprecedented death sparked a crime wave that went beyond all imagination and this meant that it went unstoppable for a long time. Both police and youths suffered each fighting the other side, though one side hopes to restore order but contributes to the escalating violence.

2)   What were the reasons given as to why youths were involved in the riots?

Youths became involved in the riots, stating that they lack hope for their futures and feel let down by society. While I don’t condone violence nor crime, I can understand their view point if all their dreams of future happiness have came crashing down around them then some may feel that this may be the only option. Why try for a future that you know you will never obtain? If you now that your life will never amount to any future success then people will obviously turn to the here and now and make life worth living. Some later admitted to using these reason to cause mindless violence and loot the shops.

3)   Were youths given a fair and unbiased representation in the press coverage of the riots?

·      I think that youths were given an unfair and a biased reputation in the press coverage of the riots, they claimed that it was mainly youths causing the problem, yet they brand youths from year 18 to 24 when in fact they are classed as adults then.  Also there are little articles and interviews from these so-called ‘youths’ perspectives. So how can they be branded as thugs and yobs without giving there side of matters, for all anyone knows they could have had a reason to act the way they did. Due to this biased image all youths are branded together as hoodlams and untrustworthy.

4)   How can the coverage of the London riots be understood in relation to the ideas of Stan Cohen?

Stan Cohan talks about moral panic, which is a social upheaval, something that when it occurs causes a panic among the people and I usually gains a lot of attention from the media. This is what the London riots can be classed as due to the constant crime and the amount of coverage it received such as setting a police car a light and looting the shops. The media using negative words to describe the youths further escalated this ‘panic’. By reporting graphically and adding the description and tag lines they added to this social upheaval.

Stan Cohan also discussed ‘folk devils’ which are societal deviants; these terms can be applied to youths now due to their portrayal by the media. They reported the youths to be ‘gangs, thugs and hoodlams’ with such a negative semantic field they had the entire country believing that all youths were the same and could not be trusted. Perhaps the media felt it necessary to report how they did as if it just told it how it was then they would not have sold as papers, but by trying to increase their profits they have greatly developed this moral panic.

5)   David Gauntlett stated that  “Identities are not ‘given’ but are constructed and negotiated.”

When researching the riots I found that it was very hard to find interviews both TV and Newspapers from the youth perspective, they had next to no voice of reason throughout the whole of the riots.  The youths involved were given no chance to explain neither their actions nor the reasons behind them, the media dominated by the older generation felt that they k new best and wrote what they thought. While said answers might have been common when they were that age the reasons now would be completely different. This biased view has had a knock on effect for the rest of the youth population, due to the view given by elders the majority now thinks of youths as mindless criminals. By not being able to defend their actions and stance on the riots, the media are confirming Gauntletts ideas that the identities we have are constructed by others not created by our selves

Article London Riots Aug, 2011

http://www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/crime-court/gang_who_plotted_looting_spree_in_brent_during_the_london_riots_sent_to_prison_1_1950724

The above article tells how a gang of '22 males, aged between 15 and 32' have been sentenced to 37 and a half years in jail. The article takes no sides and presents the facts objectivly, however the emotional respone towards youths is a negative one due to the nature of the story and the events that occumpanied it. In this article the negative view of youths is understandable to to the attrocious crimes commited by the gang members some as young as 14-years-old.

Article London Riots Aug, 11 2011

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/04/pc-accused-of-assaulting-boy

The above article is an intersting one as it details the days following the riots and is one of a very few number that shows the police in a bad light rather than youths. It tells how a police officer had his hands round a youth neck during the riots and then denies it. This offer then proced to 'stamp on the boys back' the officer later cliamed it was an 'approved safety technique.'  In this one a youth is depicted as a victim rather than the offender and offers both sides a chance to tell their story givign no bias either for or against youths. This article however did not come to light unit 2013.

BBC News London Riots Aug, 7 2011

This news report is from the London Riots on the 7th August 2011 and is presented by BBC News.
Again this report shows the worst of youths as nothign more than violent thugs who look to destory everything in their path. This news report constantly talks of young men no other age group just them, and to do so is unjust. There were more than youths involved in these riots and they were caused by a man being shot dead by the police. But no the police are not in the wrong youths are, in a society where you are punished for standing fior your beliefs is it any wonder why these riots accured. What was once a peaceful protest is now waves of violance. The reporters dont actually interview anyone and just present what they see, they dont ask why they are acting like that or the emotions that are coursing through them. I do not condoen the violance and from this view youths are in the wrong, noone tries to solve this without violance, the police who state they wish to stop this crime wave are responding with violance, which inturn makes teh youths act out more.

BBC News London Riots Aug,6 2011

In this video youths are represented at their worst, they are depicted as violent, uncaring hoodlums. They smash the windows of a police car that was just sitting there and once finished damaging the exterior they search the interior and take anything they find. However, there at riots so of course the youths are not going to be presented in a positive light and it is unfair to group all youths together because of a select group.

They are not really interviewing anyone but are observing what is happening and are showing the most bad aspects of the rioting youths such as attacking the police car and taking the camera. I do feel that this broadcast is biased as it only focuses on the 'evil youths' what about the older generation that has been involved? Also they do nothing to counter balance it, what about other good projects that youths dominate?