Sket Evaluation Questions

3. How are the girls represented in the film? Complete a brief character analysis for Kayla, Danielle and Shaks.

Kayla is a 16 year old girl from Newcastle who has moved to London after her mother died with her sister Tanya. She has left all her friends behind and really wants to feel a part of something in order to get on with her life as she already feels like she has been dragged away from normality. After her sister is brutally murdered she then finds herself looking for comfort and a 'maternal' figure from an all female gang that she came across while on a bus ride who protected her as a group of males were trying to 'hit on her'. However I do believe that the gang were genuinely just hitting these males as they don't appreciate the thought of males having authority over women, but Kayla got the feeling that they were protecting her. Throughout the film she takes part in 'tasks' they want her to complete such as; stealing from a local shop and helping the girls beat up a man who 'forced' one of the girls to have sex with him. After she has done this the girls do accept her as 'one of them' and she then changes the way she looks at life as a whole because she starts to become very violent and changes her identity to impress the girls. For example when Kayla found out it was Trey that killed her sister she was determined to kill him even though the girls told her that she wouldn't have a chance because he has killed so many people before. So when she takes it up on herself to invade the rooftop of the office where a party is taking place to 'end he's life' the girls are all unsure but are there to help her, in the end you see Kayla chicken out of killing him which shows her softer and immature side come back and it means she has to rely on Danielle to hit him with a hammer and take a 'shank' while protecting her which makes her then realise this is not the life she wants to be a part of and at the end of the film she finally goes to meet up with her 'long lost dad' because that part of her identity was not her 'real self' and she wants to continue on the right tracks.

Danielle is the strongest member of the group and each one of the girls look up to her as some sort of 'role model' because of her confident and forward approach to situations that occur throughout the film. From the first scene she is included in on the bus you can see that she is the 'leader' as she is the first one to walk onto the screen with the other 3 girls following, the way she leans back on the chair and plays with the gold chains around her neck suggest she has a masculine side. Throughout the rest of the film she is the girl who 'encourages' Kayla to join in with various attacks that the girls usually do in order to get revenge but also cash. The first instance is robbing a shop, in which Danielle tells Kayla "if you do this, I may let you hang with us" she says it in quite a persuasive way, to the other girls annoyance because they think Kayla is too young and fragile to be a part of this girl gang however Danielle completely stands by her through the film and begins to open up about her private life - this is something she has never done with the other girls but because she finds out Kayla has also lost her mother she feels like she can talk about how loosing her own mother affected her, it made her the person she is today because we find out that Danielle's mum was traumatically attacked by her dad on various occasions and didn't fight back and it made her realise she didn't want to be a 'pussy' who lets men beat her which is the answer to why she is the most violent in the film. For example when Kayla pretends two men have tried to 'hit on her' in a bid to get their attention Danielle runs at them to beat them with fist punches and kicks before spitting at them and when she finds out one of her 'girls' was forced into having sex with a male she goes around to he's house and all of the girls beat him up and leave him in a worthless state after hitting with bricks and crow bars while Danielle watched on from the side lines proudly as much as to say that she has brought these girls up to act on serious situations in the best way. The final scenes of the film show Kayla trying to get her own back on Trey for killing her sister, she goes it alone upstairs to he's office while the party is in full swing downstairs. But Danielle cannot bear the fact that she is with him alone and her and the rest of the girls invade and take action before Trey exclaims that she had sex with him; Danielle's reply was ' you fucking raped me' to the shock of her friends who she had never told because she was too scared to, I believe this is because having someone rape you to Danielle is letting them win because she didn't want it to happen. This led her to hit Trey over the head before giving Kayla the chance to cut he's neck, however because she hesitated Trey came round and stabbed Danielle who was left shocked and fighting for her life.

Shaks is one of the less important characters in the film. She is Trey's 'wing girl' who helps him catch and attack people who we uses to collect money for him. I think she believes their to be an actual relationship going on compared to just a friendship in the eyes of Trey, she is seen in small parts at the beginning of the film in he's office where she is given various orders from him, however when she sees one of the clients in the street she begins to show her softer side and doesn't lay a finger on her and lets her go because all she is really wanting is for Trey to stop this business; them to take the cash and move away. However he doesn't see it like that and on the night of Tanya's killing (which only happened because she intervened in Trey shouting at Shaks for not getting the money from the young homeless girl who she let go) Shaks just stood and watched as Trey strangled Tanya to death and when he was finished he told her "that was all your fault" when really it was actually he's because he started to shout at her in a public place which quite an aggressive tone which in any scenario would catch someone's attention. The next major time she is seen is in the hospital where she asks Kayla if the police know who killed her sister, which then sparked up ideas that she had something to do with it which is when Shaks replies "revenge gets you nowhere" because she knows how much of a violent man Trey is and if Kayla tries to get any revenge onto him she will be killed instantly. As the film goes on Shaks reveals her vulnerable side when she seems to tell Trey to go agaisnt fighting and being negative; this is when we later find out she is pregnant. Which explains why she really is determined to start a new life however when she lets Trey know he says "get rid of it" and I think this is the first time in the film when Shaks realizes they both don't want the same things. The next most important scene is in the cafe when Kayla and 'the girls' turn up for a chat and Kayla is convinced Shaks will help get revenge because of he's past, her and Danielle exchange a few nasty comments to each other which indicates to me they have both been sexually involved with Trey and that hurts Shaks. At the end of this meeting she lets the girls know where they can catch Trey alone and says she will put tablets in he's drink to make him feel drowsy, I think this came over her because of what he said about the baby because she feels so much love for it. However in the final club scene, she corners away from adding the tablets to he's drink and leaves the stair gates open for the girls to enter before making her way outside to see Trey's 'wing man' to ask for some cash as she has 'some things she needs to sort out' but really I think she was planing on running away with her baby as getting rid of it to her wasn't an option, this is the only part of the film where she looked really scared and upset about what had happened but I am glad she realised just how horrible Trey can be.

. 4.Discuss the themes within the film and consider how these contribute to the collective identity of young people.

Every theme shown through the film links directly to how the

'normal/average' teenager is seen in the media today, which is why I believe so many people can watch the film and link to it in some way; the teenagers will have maybe been in some of the similar circumstances as the girls (mainly females) and the adults or any other people e.g news reporters/parents can also watch the film and realise the meanings behind the way these girls act to show that not ALL young people resort to being violent without having a valid reason. The usual themes that are associated with 'youths' and that are also included in the film is the excessive amounts of alcohol and drugs consumed, which could be another reason why the situations and violence get so out of hand in the real world because they can both make you feel more confident and determined especially if you already have a direct person you want to get revenge with using these two elements can encourage you to ' do your best ' which is certainly the idea of the girls in the film. Kayla drinks in a scene alone, this is for comfort after finding out her sister has died and she is now alone with no one to go too, but you see her struggling to stomach the vodka by her facial expressions. I think this is a common factor for youngsters who think they can drink a lot but when it comes down to it they really cant handle the drink. The whole group are then shown smoking drugs in a house which is where the scene Danielle says to Kayla "back out on us and we will kill you" this statement is then followed by laughter to try and ease the moment but because of Danielle's confident character you can tell she is actually being serious. Another theme is the meaning of a SKET, which in turn means 'CHAV' and this is a name usually associated with this age group because of the negative press they receive about various situations that occur through the teenage years, the main reason they will have nicknamed these girls is to show again the realistic views of how much the film actually links in with society today and how every teenager is targeted and seen in a negative light without being given the chance to speak their minds and explain what their background is because not everyone is part of a gang, but for the film they did create one. The use of urban settings and violence in the film is also a common theme to use in the 'grime neighborhood' because it shows that this is were the girls are from so it will make people assume they have a violent background because many of the gangs; especially in London as its the norm in this 'urban safari' All of these themes have been added in the correct way to make the whole film as realistic as possible for every teenager out there to consider and then know if they do actually act like one of these people or they don't which will then determine the idea of weather they should believe what the papers say or accept that they are who they are and it's not the type of person that the media describes.

5. Overall, does this film fuel or challenge negative representation of identity?

6. Consider links with other case studies we have studied and also link understanding ofSket with any relevant theory.

I think SKET challenges the usual representation of young people in society because the film actually shows a background and a valid reason for all of the trouble that goes on throughout, so if some of the parents/newspaper journalists or any other person who looks down on these people watched SKET I think they would have a better understanding about what actually goes on in young people's minds and how they seem to deal with situations which would be completely different for them. Because not many girl gangs are around today it's a quite surreal time line of events that happen because it's usually male members you see attacking vulnerable people on the streets and smoking illegal drugs e.t.c but having the characters be female it gives people an insight into what goes through their heads as individuals to actually complete some of these horrible crimes; as this film is concerned the problems are usually fueled by other people and the girls are just reacting, this is the main reason why I think the film challenges the representation because if they just showed the girls beating people up, attacking personal belongings and disobeying the rules of the law then they would be 'living up' to the name they already have from most members of the public due to recent events such as the London Riots as it was mainly the younger generation involved in the looting and attacking of the police force, however it wasn't mainly girls I would say males dominated that type of event but they do both have a similar link because for example the girls in SKET fought with the males because of things they had done eg flirting with various gang members or killing someone's loved one and it was the same sort of scenario for the London Riots as most of the youths involved only became involved because of the killing of Mark Duggan which happened suddenly because of a police officer so they all wanted to protest and say it was wrong which they did by attacking shops/business but the girls in SKET attacked people. Singer/songwriter Plan B's idea for Ill Manors was to show the exact representation of young people that are perceived by the society of today in he's music video and show that most of them tend to live up to this name of being a Yob or a member of a Gang just because they are labelled as one of them in so many ways, this does link back to SKET because the girls in the film are not necessarily labelled but in some ways they want the feeling of being 'labelled' as bad girls for their behavior to show they are dominant over the male race. However they are being labelled for various reasons; plan B is showing the "actual" idea behind these young people from society whereas the girls in SKET "want" to be thought of as bad people.
David Gauntlett's theory would link in perfectly with SKET because he talks about no identity is given, it's constructed and negotiated and that's exactly what happens with the girls in the film especially Kayla. At the beginning you see her as a shy and quiet person who keeps away from everyone because she is very timid, however when these "SKETS" stick up for her on a bus journey she instantly follows them and her whole personality and aura changes because she wants to be a part of that group, this shows her start to think in a more viscous way about people and violence will always be the answer if she wants to be apart of them. I think the rest of the girls will have been different too before the met Danielle because they all seem to look up to her in some way so I think when they were younger their identities will have been totally different and no sort of negative thoughts would have ever went through their heads whereas Danielle had a past which lead her to live like this.
David Buckingham also explains that identity is complicated and complex in a way because a person doesn't always seem distinct in the person that they are and their qualities and personality can change very quickly depending on the trends/ideas of others that they make look up to. This again would link back to mainly Kayla because in the film you can see that she does want to be the best person she can for her sister, however when she is around the girls she wants to be just like them, however I don't think in herself she believes she is one of the girls because of her previous past and how timid and shy she has always been, however due to the tragic death of her sister she has no one else to turn too so this type of identity does stick throughout the rest of the film, this is due to how complex Kayla's outlook on life actually is I don't think she knows what is going to happen so she looks to different people and gets their opinions and by say for example what Danielle believes is going to happen, Kayla follows her same intentions because her identity to me is 'unknown' most of the time.

Sket Poster Analysis

What does this image suggest about the film, in terms of the:

a. The Characters - their identity as individuals and as a group; each of the characters in the poster look angry and looks as though they are each in turn hitting someone/something. None of them look alike which shows they have individual personalities and qualities that singles them out from each other. Because the film is about female empowerment and how female gangs take the traits of males in order to have authority, you can see by each of their faces that they are really passionate about what their doing and I believe the people that each of them are attacking are males which is why they look so angry and so determined to hurt them in the worst way possible. As a group you can see that they all have the same intentions when it comes to fighting however as individuals I think the girl on the far right looks the strongest and takes every person she attacks seriously compared to the other 4 girls seen in the poster who don't really have as much passion in what they are doing, as you come to find out in the film she is the leader which explains why I may think this.

b. The Setting; no actual background is used in this poster which means a clear idea of where these girls are at cannot be determined. However because the colour grey is used behind them it suggests to me that the people who created the poster wanted to give the idea of it looking like concrete, linking to the idea of a 'concrete jungle' which is a location that is made up of high rise flats in run down areas which is seen as an unsafe and dangerous place to be. This is exactly where these types of girls look like they are from due to the behavior they have towards violence and also the clothing they are seen wearing as the hooded jackets are a prime example of what 'youths' wear in places like London which consist of a variety of different gang cultures as well as a lot of build up areas, so there interpretation of the settings for this film has been created by using simple ideas. Also by the objects they are holding in their hands; crow bars and bricks it suggests to me that in these types of estates these objects are easy to find and are used as weapons when violence is concerned as many people would break down various things just to have these at hand when in need.

c.The Story; The story behind this poster is simple; they are a group of girls who seem to be in some sort of gang and are using violence to get thrills from attacking the opposite sex. Although these images are seen separately it suggests to me that they work together as part of a team to get the outcome that they are hoping for; weather it be just verbally attacking males or actually trying to hurt them in some way so they know not to mess with the whole group again. However other aspects of the story that would be shown through the film cannot be determined just by this poster. I think small aspects are shown such as the choice of text used is of a urban nature which suggests the types of girls they are and also as I have spoke about previously the location would be set in maybe a city like London because of the amount of high rise buildings around there and the amount of crime and violence that takes place there. Overall I think the story behind this poster and what will happen in the film is these girls attacking a range of different men for different reasons, so some scenes could be slightly gory and uncomfortable to watch but they have been put together to show how the 'hood' is the girls and how they want to feel important and respected by the other sex.

How does it suggest these things?
The things I have spoken about regarding the poster above are shown in a variety of ways. As I have explained previously the facial expressions the girls are portraying in the image look like they are trying really hard to get the best outcome possible out of what or who they are attacking.The images of only girls shown in the poster suggest to me that the whole film is only about girls who can be seen together as one unit/gang who will be seen sticking together to cause trouble. The objects they have decided to use in the poster suggest that they are wanting to cause quite a lot of damage no matter what the consequences as the bricks and crow bars have been placed right at the front of the poster in order for the audience to notice them quicker and instantly realize the background behind it.
The emotion of the poster is very raw and negative and it suggests to me that each of the girls may have problems in their lives separately that they hope to sort out in the film, although anger is shown quite a lot sadness can also be detected because whatever reason they have for being so violent must have effected them on a personal level to make them determined to get their own back.
Finally the text chosen to write the titles for the poster looks very 'urban and street' to attract that type of audience in because the film is based around girls who come from the gang culture and violence that happens in London and other deprived areas so they would hope people from these backgrounds can relate to the film easily and understand the message they are trying to get across. I think the text can give an overall feel of 'anti social' to the poster because the title of the film and the way the letters look like they have been carved through as they show scratches which almost suggests the meaning of the word is quite negative. This also adds more attention to the image as the girls also look very 'anti social' with the behavior they are projecting out.

How does this poster image fit with the ways girls tend to be shown in film posters, or on magazines, or on TV? Explain your answer, using examples where you can.
The poster shows these girls in a completely different way to how girls are usually portrayed in the media today. These girls are shown in a very masculine and negative way because of the hooded jackets they are wearing, the violent objects they are holding in order to show they are attacking someone/something and the malicious facial expressions to show they are very powerful and have authority over any of their 'victims'. Compared to the women usually showed in the media, they are usually seen as 'role models' to other girls/women because of their beauty and respectable personality. People like Victoria Beckham for example, a picture of a recent photo shoot she was involved in for a top fashion magazine can be seen below she looks stunning in the swimsuit she is wearing and many women would look up to her because she is a mother of 4 children and always in the spotlight.
Most girls who are seen in films are also usually shown in a positive light and are usually dressed really nicely to attract the male attention because of their beauty and position of character they are playing, Sket is one of the first films I have seen that show the girls in a 'dressed down' approach to make sure their characters can be determined and the brand identity is shown through. For example below the image of actress Anne Hathaway in the movie 'one day' shows a full body image of her in deep awe with the male in the image, however you can still see her slim figure and her beautiful choice of clothing which would again make women and girls look at her in a 'jealous' light because the photographer has captured the image in the best possible way.

So overall the girls in the film, Sket are shown in an opposite way to how other women are shown in the media today, so personally I don't think the female audience would look up to them in anyway because of this poster they may just respect them for the characters they are playing in the film because they are standing up for themselves but in other aspects such as beauty and personality being concerned it's not of a high percentage to be considered.

Future Debates About Youth Collective Identity

Has the representation of youth changed from past to present?

Or are we going to have the same representations as we had before? Demonisation of youth

The norm, both in the past and currently, is for older creators to construct representation of youth. So is this the future - younger writers/directors getting involved to create more truthful, relevant representations?

Do you really think representations of youth will change?

Will truthful, relevant representations be found on the internet where UK youth are already in control (to a certain degree) of how they are represented through Youtube and Facebook?

Plan B Activity

- Does the video fuel negative representations of youth collective identity?

Or does the video and lyrics together attempt to challenge these negative views?
The characters used in this video are seen as the typical 'youths' with the stereotypical "hooded clothing" and "violent personalities" that society slates them for having, but I believe they have got into these characters precisely to record this music video because throughout the song Plan B exclaims "feed the fire that's what we've learnt" this means that all young people are now trying to go along with what society and the media says about them just to keep the peace. The 'youth' characters used in the video I believe are trying to portray what the usual teenager is represented as in the media, however I don't think they are in anyway fueling a negative outlook of them, it's just genuinely their interpretation, which in fact is exactly how the public eye sees these 'youths. For example the lyric 'he's got a hoodie on give him a hug on second thoughts don't you don't wanna get mugged' shows realistically that people in 'hoodies' are automatically targeted as bad people who commit crimes mainly to do with attacking others and hiding their identity, a scene is then shown in the video to portray the lyrics however it's shown in a more creative way and not violent which suggests the rapper and the characters he has chosen to use are showing that this isn't a common thing to happen and not everyone who wears a hoodie is a bad person, so everyone should be given an equal chance, this is challenging the usual 'negative representation' of the youth culture of today and I think this is the exact point that the artist wants to get across, that these youngsters are targeted in such a bad way that many of them 'play up' to what they are shown to be like instead of being able to be themselves.

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

Most of the people represented in the 'Ill Manors' video are shown wearing the same type of clothing; hooded tracksuits and some wearing bandannas over their faces which was used a lot in the London Riots in order for the badly behaved youths to hide their identity to stop them getting caught. Throughout the video you see all of the young people joined together as 'one' because they are part of a group they are all there to look out for each other encase of any situations occurring. Each one of them has a lot of confidence which is shown every time the camera is put onto them, this is because many youngsters these days don't let anything faze them and they always know that violence can be the answer if anything goes wrong. However not all the shots of the young people through the video are negative, most of them show the whole group on a council estate having dance off by completing different hip hop moves; they range from a young age to teenagers showing off their unique moves, this shows that these people have other hobbies and shouldn't just be known for the bad things that happen in their areas. There is one scene that shows the groups beating people up with a female recording it (happy slapping) which is a commonly thought about attack to do with these young people, the expression in her face shows she thinks what is happening is funny and should be going ahead, which is the exact feelings of most of the teenagers as the person they are attacking could have done something to them previously.
Overall I think the people in the video are represented and shown in the correct light just like the real types of 'youths' are shown today, by the artist choosing to add in real life footage from the London Riots and political events it shows the behavior from these young people is exactly the same and the clothing/attitudes they have can also be easily identified.

- Are there any instances in the video which show authority abusing their power?
There are small parts in the video which show the public services taking immediate action over what the young people are doing, in one scene a person is shown getting pushed back from the crowd by a police officer which looks like a street protest to do with the London Riots, although he looks very angry and stern about what he was doing I believe it was the correct thing to do in order for the young people to take what they are doing seriously.
However the rest of the footage throughout the video shows the young people roaming free around the streets and taking part in any sort of attack or violent act they want without any sort of authority being had over them, this is why I believe most of them are not scared of the police force or any other public service because they are never usually seen when the major events take place so these young people would then know how to stick up for themselves and defend what they have done because the truth could never really be found, especially the scenarios to do with the London Riots as too many people were involved.

- 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?
I think Plan B wanted to challenge the way that young people are seen in society today and hopefully spread the word that not every 'youth' is the same and each and everyone of them can have good qualities that are positive and make them seem just like any other person in society that isn't getting criticized just for the way they look and the way that some of the other people in their age group act like. So for the music video he tried to show an interpretation of how the mass media and the public eye see these young people and show their negative attitude to life and authority, however the lyrics show that really these young people are being portrayed in the wrong way and actually some of them have no violent background and just wish to be seen as everyone else.

I think Plan B hopes to achieve a positive response to both he's music video and he's film from the public eye and also the media because he wants them both to realise that the young people of today should be respected for who they are and should get the chances they deserve to speak up and explain their backgrounds and show their true identities without people creating them on a very unprofessional level because it's very biased. But the artists's main idea is to help with financial worries of social workers and other youth facilities for the youths of today in order to keep them out of trouble and help them be represented in a better light, this is needed because of the harsh government cuts this age group has been totally ruled out because of the London Riots trouble and how badly they have been talked about many have believed it which would then make the government think 'why do these violent gangs deserve somewhere to spend their nights.' so Plan B aka Ben Drew wants to change that an raise awareness and money for more youth centers and social worker teams to be set up once again to give these teens something to do and look forward to in life because as a teenage living on a council estate he didn't have that so he wants to give something back which will hopefully remove the controversial reports away from the youths and give them time and chance to show the real them.

Essay Question

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

The mass media was the main culprit for trending the negative energy given by society to the youths, because most of the riot trouble and incidents were found to be erupted by the youths who are stereotyped all the way through the various broadcasts and interviews that were released during this time period in August 2011. Statistics show that 11% of 11-17 have been to court, this information shocked me as I would expect children of this age to be enjoying there lives playing nicely with friends, however this is the total opposite result as it sounds as though they must have been either violent or disobeying the law in some way shape or form which is not acceptable, but personally I don't believe children or 'teens' of this age can develop such a negative outlook on the society they live in and most of what they do will be copied from peers of a older generation or from the media for example film, t.v, music videos. They will believe that if they are being shown to us all constantly that this is what society should be made up of and the violence and swearing e.t.c that is used among this media frenzy is the usual behavior that the people of today are drawn to, which if thought about logically could be seen as a major impact on the teenagers typical life today.
Theorist Gramsci says that 'Britain's mainstream media have seized on the stereotype of hooded, unemployed, violent youths as the culprits' He goes onto use the quote "demonetization of youths" which is simple terminology to link back to because he is basically saying that the social and mass media are projecting the youths in a negative light as they are stereotyping each of them on just the way dress, which I believe to be wrong because someone may enjoy dressing in casual 'hooded' attire and because of this it shouldn't spark up the fact that they have been involved in the London Riots, or any other form of trouble in that matter because this element should not have any direct link and each 'youth' should respected for the way they are before being judged and branded as a bad person. This theorist backs up my idea and also can link into Stanley Cohen's idea of the Deviance Amplification Theory which means that the deviants 'the youths' in this situation are brought up in the news or media in general and the mass media or any other type of media will 'amplify' the story, this means "making the situation seem ten times worse than it really is just to entice in more viewers and get them to agree with what they say" I believe this type of theory is done on a daily basis in the local headlines some of the stories do not even sound like they are remotely true and you can see that they have been created just for the interest of the local media to receive different opinions/feedback of the society and see if they agree with what is said. I believe situations like this have arisen within the London riots as youths have been targeted as the main type of 'group' to have been involved in the dangerous events that took place over the three days and stories will have been written for example Looting and Rioting continues from the BBC News page, this has been expanded to seem like the youths have caused such a high percentage of problems when really the problems could have been minor or even still only involved a small number of people and the rest could have been on lookers, but instead by explaining it to be this extreme situation the readers would comply with what is happening and because the 'youths' are the main targets for these problems these readers could now see them as the main culprits for these problems and believe everything that happens within the riots will be down to them, which is a very unfair judgement but they can only make opinions on the information they are given and because it's been amplified to such a high level most will believe it to be true as it's to do with the main updates regarding this serious situation.

The social media is something used mainly by the younger generation, the frequently used sites are usually Facebook and Twitter because these are both programs in which you can communicate with other people and in the case of the London Riots; Spread the word about the actions/events that were going to take place throughout the duration of these fight agaisnt society. These can both be seen as 'skilled' use of the technology we have available to us today as they used the media to pose a threat to the social order, this was done mainly during the riots to organize a group of gangs to riot agaisnt the police force, this became a popular target due to the unexpected shooting of Mark Duggan which was done by a police officer. The groups did start with a peaceful protest showing they felt what the police did was wrong, but because they felt like no one was listening to their thoughts and opinions on the matter they took the situation in to their own hands. Of com results show that 37% of teenagers have a Blackberry phone, it's seen as a status symbol, they are usually popular between 16-24 year olds. The reason for this is mainly down to the fact that Blackberry's have an instant messaging app installed inside of them, which means it's free to talk to friends compared to using a different phone and paying for each text you send. Having this free opportunity it meant broadcasts could be sent VIA 'bbm' to let groups know about the youths plans to attack the cities on a larger scale, these messages cannot be accessed by the police or any other legal group as no money is linked to the program which is another positive point for these kids as they know whatever they say about attacking a certain person/place and who ever started these allegations would never be caught through this messaging service.
This is definitely a negative point for the society as they cannot just assume it was certain people and without any evidence no accusations can be made, MP David Lammy called for companies to suspend services mainly Blackberry because of all the broadcasts and plans getting out of control, one person also asked for the internet to be turned off, which is a really unlikely command to be asked for as it's human rights in many respects as most of the population do use the internet in their day to day lives, if the government are suspecting all of the problems of the London Riots to be linked mainly to youths why should everyone else suffer in their place? It's also a communication device that could be used for work, socializing and even research so this suggestion was never taken forward, because it would effect the world in too many ways. This would again get brought back onto the subject of everything being the governments fault when really they are trying to stop the main culprits but this type of action would not imply that problem hands on.
There are many other reasons why youths wanted to protest, they involved the government cuts, unemployment rates increasing and high tuition fees. The social media allowed them to do that in their own personal way, however as David Gauntlett explains; 'Identities are not 'given' but are constructed and negotiated' This suggests to me that many of these branded 'youths' are following the crowd and becoming 'peer pressured' into having the same beliefs and opinions as everyone else around their age group towards the riots and the government in general. For example a young student may believe that the tuition fees are extremely high for universities and know it will be impossible to pay so are not exactly positive about the whole thing, however there is always a back up plan; loans are available to pay for the university that you choose to go to and is then paid back in installments every month from when u earn over 21k a year. These results should be positive for most people, but for that small number of people who still believe that it's unacceptable they will try and change the outlook on others about this situation which can escalate into these riots for example because they think no one is listening to how they feel in the current issues. So I think some youth identities are definitely constructed in the ways of "friends" so that the whole group believes in the same things and negotiated because if some people don't believe that violence is the answer they would need to be persuaded by their friends so they know everything is going to be ok, so Gauntlett's point is very useful and links back to this topic successfully.
Because the social media website like Facebook and Twitter are accessible to people of all ages and creates a large opportunity for everyone to have their own personal opinion and say about something without being judged they are used constantly by millions of people everyday. However linking these websites back to just the London Riots they were sometimes used to communicate with people to start up attacks and talk about what damage had been caused through the riots, but they were also used in a positive light as they were both used to support the clean up of the riots. Facebook had a Riot Clean Up page which could be 'liked' and then extra information would be given on when it will take place and it also means you could socialise with others who have also entered the group before the event takes place so bonds have begun. On Twitter it was seen as #cleanup and many people from all over the country promoted this idea which also led to more and more people tweeting about it and noticing what things now needed to be taken into their own hands to get everyone's lives back on track.
This small campaign however does so these 'youths' in a positive light because they have put something together that they want a lot of people to come to in aid of returning everyone's live back to normal without leaving everything to the government because I think personally the whole riot frenzy got out of control and the groups who started it will come to realise that in the future. There was also a page made via Facebook which said Supporting MET Police Agaisnt London Rioters, so this was clearly a problem and one of the main elements why the riots actually began, however the more and more people who like that page make the youths all look like they are in the wrong and the police have done nothing that is worth fighting over.
There are a variety of other programs/websites e.t.c that youths are seen in a positive light in and show the society that not everyone of them was actually involved in the riots and their lives are totally different, for example the "Not in my name campaign" ran and consisted of a large group of children all holding up a bored with the "not in my name" quote on and this was captured and added to the social media sites to show the children that didn't want their names used in a negative way because they are from the same age group as the youths who were involved in the riots themselves. I think this whole campaign is such a good idea as these children can show that they are solely trying to live their lives and don't want the society they live in to be affected because of other people's actions. Appreciation websites have also been created to show the strengths of the teenage groups and how what they have done has had an impact on how they develop throughout their lives and what potentional they put into their work to hope they find a successful career in the future, I think these are a really good reliable source and society should look over them before making judgement on every youth because not all are the same.
The french theorist Michael Foucault explains that "people do not have a real identity within themselves, that's just a way of talking about themselves e.g Discourse" He also goes onto say that identity "is a shifting, temporary construction". Relating he's theory back to my target points the London Riots I think it links into Gauntlets idea as every person follows a trend or the personality or someone else in ways because influences do matter on people's opinions and outlooks on life and again peer pressure and watching others do the bad things that society understandably dislikes about the youths of today are some of the things that "the quieter ones" would take in and maybe want to portray themselves. He goes onto explain that the mass media is seen as the 'power' in this instance as it produces reactions and resistances to the goings on in the media today. When the London Riots occurred, most people where shocked and appalled by the behavior of the youths, but they themselves wouldn't have felt any guilt as 1) they were protesting agaisnt the killing of Mark Duggan and 2) every single one of the youths worn scarves over their faces to hide their identity. These points alone could make a difference to an average teenager who maybe thrive off the thrill of being in trouble and accomplishing something at the end of it, or some may just want to spend time with their friends and it means taking part in these upsetting circumstances to do that. Most of the theories I have learnt about in my lessons can relate back to these riots and definitely the social media as without it this 3 day attack may not have been on such a large scale and everything would have turned out differently.

Overall the representation of youths throughout the London Riots was of a negative impact as many people accused them of being the main culprits throughout and every situation that occurred had some relevance to their day to day lives at the time in August 2011, so opinions from the social media confirm how 'badly behaved' and 'violent' these youths are, the thing that I don't necessarily agree with this is that none of the youths really got to give their personal reasons for being involved in the riots or even to say that they hadn't, the media just made up the minds of the rest of society and that's why the society we live in today is so divided mainly because a few people have a certain opinion but they broadcast it to an extent where the rest of the town/country/city will hear/see and think that they are telling the truth, by amplifying the information it's going to catch on to a range of people from different backgrounds/countries e.t.c to all gang up on a group of teenagers which is unfair in every respect. The media haven't challenged the representation of youths by asking them the questions they want to find the answers too or even talked about any positive sides to the youths that some of them are actually apart of, for example awards for teenagers or campaigns agaisnt the violence and fighting that teens themselves may have put together. The media around today never look into the happier positive sides to things if they think it won't attract the readers/viewers because that's the key point they always have to focus on, by writing or speaking about who they believe to be the problem during the riots and naming them 'youths' it's going to catch on as no other suspects of any other age range was mentioned. Without the social media aspect I don't think judgments would be made as easily and everyone could have their own impression on something/someone without being questioned by it. For example if the youths knew they were not going to record for live TV they may speak to locals about why they have been involved which would help them both understand whats going on and go onto re build bridges as they can inform other locals who will know the real truth as it's being heard by the people themselves. So for this instance the social media has been all one sided and confirmed the youths as bad people and not tried to see a balanced argument, which at the end of the day is sad because without real quotes from these people you can immediately tell what has been said is on account of what these tabloids and correspondents believe.

Review of Research

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

Throughout the selection of newspapers and news reports I have looked at in relation to the London riots there has only been one news reports in which a reporter interviewed a friend of Mark Duggan, he explained that they all had reasons for starting these riots and taking part in them because Mark was killed unnecessarily by police and the situation could have been dealt with in a more professional and reasonable manner as police are supposed to be saving lives and keeping people away from danger not creating problems themselves. Although rioting may have been too much of a situation to have been caused over a single mans death I do understand where the young youth was coming from because he is only trying to show his respects to his friend along with the rest of the 'youths' and trying to show the police force that what they did was wrong and some things need to be shown in serious situations before they are realised to have affected so many people. I think this did make the police more aware of what they had done and the percentage of people they had affected in the process, it may have been another reason why they didn't intervene with much of the looting, attacks e.t.c

However the youth only got around 10 seconds air time and was then cut off to go onto a reporters voice again, this shows they still don't really give the youths a chance to explain as the rest of my research I found didn't give the youths any chance to express their feelings on the matter they just made the assumptions around what they believed to be the 'real truth' but personally I think if reporters want the public to engage with this situation they should give a balanced argument and show the real opinions and feedback from two sides; the police and the youths so then they can decide who to believe on the feedback given. It was quite disappointing that I didn't come across anymore articles giving the youths personal feelings about the riots as I think it would have been a lot more interesting to analyse and work out why the problems escalated so much into a violent frenzy.

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

Throughout my research part of this task; looking for specific reports/news bulletins to analyse I didn't come across a huge amount that let 'youths give their voice', the main one was the one I discussed above about the youth who explained that Mark Duggan was a close friend and him and he's group of friends were showing there support of him agaisnt the police by causing some of this trouble, although it is bad what they did he was truthful and I do believe he had every reason to react, maybe just not as bad as they did because it didn't just effect the police it affected local people and the areas that they live in. The other reports I have looked at (mainly news interviews) did have a few youths speaking out, however they used the people who many would stereotype as the typical 'chav' they were speaking with very bad language and had a negative tone to there voices discussing the fact that they don't care who and what they have upset or attacked they just wanted to get there own back, however each one of them was covered with a face mask to hide their identity from the police, this tells me they are all embarrassed of what they have done to these places and personally I think they are putting on a 'tough' act to the cameras as they know how they are being portrayed in the media so they are trying to live up to that name, this is not a good sign for some of the people the same age as these youths because they could be branded in a negative light just because of the way these people have behaved in front of the news reporters, some of the youths who had no impact into these riots are still getting on with their usual teenage lifestyle sticking in at school, behaving mature e.t.c but none of this is ever noticed by the mass media they always just dwell on the negative side, this is were Stan Cohen's theory comes into action as he explains about DEVIANCE AMPLIFICATION - this means the deviants are in fact the youths themselves 'behaving badly' throughout these riots (just for an example) and the amplification part of he's theory is referring back to the mass media (newspapers, magazines, news broadcasts e.t.c) as they all "amplify" the situation to make it sound a lot worse to draw in the attention of viewers. This is exactly what I have found throughout my research as the media debates do not make any sort of room for these 'youths' and instead make their own personal judgments so Stan Cohen's idea definitely reflects and backs up my research analysis well.

London Riots Case Study Write Up

Overview of contemporary case study

1) What were the context of the riots?

The main context of the riots was groups of 'youths' attacking the streets of various towns in the United Kingdom in order to annoy the police force as these two groups of people have never been on the same page before. But I believe these different groups will have a whole different outlook on exactly what the whole context of the riots was about and the main reason why it escalated into such a highly publicized event.
The 'youths' will believe that the context of the riots was to do with the killing of Mark Duggan which was conducted by a police officer with the gun that Duggan had as they were trying to stop him from planning revenge after someone stabbed he's cousin. So some could say the officers who killed him were doing it out of safety as their lives could have been on the line whereas the youths would see it as them killing in innocent man which is one of the main factors to influence these riots in Tottenham, which caused them to spread elsewhere in the country.

2) What were the reasons given as to why youths were involved in the riots?
The main reason so many of the youths were involved in the riots was because of the shooting of Mark Duggan which I have spoken about previously as they all came together as a collective group which first began as a 'peaceful protest' to show the police force that such a high percentage of people disagreed with what they did to Duggan. However because no one seemed to listen or care about their opinions the youths took it into their own hands to then sabotage and attack the local streets and mainly stealing from local businesses in large groups so they couldn't be stopped easily (looting).

Another reason why so many youths decided to get involved in the riots is because of the rise in government cuts which has increased unemployment rates and tuition fee's which are both very important things that teens really need to be 'on their side' at this age because most of us want to have the chance to go into higher education like university but with this tuition fees it means loans need to be taken out and various other elements that cost such a high amount of money need to be thought about and for some families this isn't possible. Regarding the unemployment increase it will effect a variety of people not just the youths but it can hugely effect their quality of life because that money could mean them having the resources to get into uni e.t.c so protesting agaisnt it will hopefully in their eyes make a difference, however because again no one took their actions into consideration a lot of violent attacks broke out.

3) Were youths given a fair and unbiased representation in the press coverage of the riots?
From the press coverage I have found during my research tasks each one of them showed the 'youths' in a negative light which I don't think is a fair representation as they have all been involved in such extreme events and just because most of them are of a young age they are getting targeted as 'bad people'. This accusation would be more clear and respected if they actually give these youths chance to speak out and explain why each of them got involved in these events that affected very vulnerable people, but instead they have made their own opinions about them and broadcasted them in a way they amplifies the information in a negative light so that the public will take it in how they have been given it and believe that these reporter's own personal feelings are the truth.
So overall I don't think the youths were given a fair and unbiased representation from the media who were covering the London Riots as through my research I only found one article who give the 'youths' chance to speak and even then it was a 10 second clip which they carried on to slate which is unfair because they haven't really been allowed to protect themselves from these accusations and I think from these the public will now think that all youths are the same; violent and disruptive with no respect for their areas, however not everyone is involved in these sorts of things and even the youths that could be seen in the middle of these riots may have had a valid reason, but these were never let loose.

Applying Theory

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

Stan Cohen explains that all 'youths' are the folk devils which is just another way of describing this certain group of people. So linking only to the London Riots many of the coverage I found labelled these youngsters as 'Thugs' 'Yobs' and 'Gangs' which are all negative words used to associate these groups of people with the riots, so to back up he's theory it shows Cohen instantly speaks about these youths in a negative light and within the events of the riots this idea has carried on. He then goes onto talk about moral panic, this is an idea or issue that could threaten the social order, which basically means the day to day running of our society we live in today. So the example is the youths looting and attacking a variety of shops/businesses and also starting dangerous fires in streets and attacking police cars e.t.c all of these activities would strike up immediate action that would need to be taken by the public services because they will be 'panicking' about what the outcomes could be and how it will effect people's lives especially the people who have had nothing to do with the riots. Then this panic can be transferred into public news reports which brings in Cohen's last idea to he's theory about 'Deviance Amplification' this means the events and different tasks that the youths take part in or any type of 'wrong' thing to do will then be AMPLIFIED by the media to make the situation sound 10x worse than it actually is so the public eye will be drawn in and believe it to be the truth.

2) 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 argument.

For

Only one newspaper report actually give a 'youth' chance to give their overall feedback on why they actually got involved with the riots, however Gauntlett's theory does come into this feedback the youngster gave because he said the killing of Mark Duggan made him want to get revenge on the police force, this shows that the identity he is perceiving has been created mainly because of this situation and I don't think he would have had any reason to get involved in the riots if he didn't feel so much about what had happened with Duggan.

Agaisnt

Most of the other newspapers gave their own opinions about the youths and made up certain reasons to why they personally believe they had got involved in the first place, some people would read the articles and then set a stern opinion on the youngsters and label them all as bad people when really none of them actually know the real reasons and clearly do not understand that not all 'youths' are the same and they all have different identities depending on what they believe in. The reason I think Gauntlett's theory talks about them being negotiated and constructed is because peer pressure is a common thing between teenagers in society and as many of them may not want to be involved in such horrific events they may try and be someone else which would in turn involve changing their personality/identity to create a new outlook on life which in this scenario would mean to want to loot shops and get revenge just like your friends because being part of a gang can definitely influence you. However for the rest of the 'youth' generation some of them may not be influenced at all and still have their own identity which isn't going to be changed in anyway but this cannot be seen in these reports as I have discussed previously the reporters ideas are final, no other spokesperson is allowed to have input which shows no balanced argument.

Daily Mail Article 15th August 2011

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023984/London-riots-2011-Where-police-Shopkeepers-mystified-theyre-left-defenceless.html

What sensationalist language is used?

'Chaos'
This suggests to readers that the situations definitely got out of hand and nothing is running smoothly, which is the indication that we got throughout the whole of the riots happening as the youths took it on themselves to cause a lot of the trouble mainly just for attention and to try and affect a lot of people in the process. The reason it has been described as chaos is because more and more increasing numbers of shopkeepers and residents in the attacked areas are speaking out in a negative light over what damage and upset the youths have caused during this small time period, it will change people's lives forever. The main reason I believe it is described as 'chaos' is because reports show that the police offers didn't try and stop the youths from looting various shops and attacking the streets. If the police took immediate action, then maybe this trouble wouldn't have escalated in such a huge way were it affected so many peoples lives, as they will never be the same again due to the youths destroying there prospects of day to day lives as so many jobs will be lost due to the major looting in the buildings, this would mean a increase in unemployment for no blame of their own.

'Baying mobs'

Business owners explain that they were seen as vulnerable victims because of the 'Mobs' as many of the police officers took the softer approach during these situations as they were believed to be 'just as scared as the rest of the onlookers'. This shows that the youths got out of hand when taking parts in rioting if even the police force thought it was too risky and dangerous to take action. When I think of the word mobs, I associate them being a part of a large group which would be a serious element of worry for on lookers and even the police because if they seen a group of people attacking a certain place for example a furniture shop,they would know the damage could be caused in limited time because of the amount of people willing to contribute in the attack. When being in part of such a large "gang" it would be harder for the legal authorities to find out exactly who each of them are, the ones that are actually found out may not actually have had anything to do with the attacks, looting e.t.c and were only present to give their support to friends. This 'excuse' would not be believed by most people as youths are already seen in a negative light by most of society and because they all wear similar clothing and are set out with one main aim (showing these major towns that what the police force did to Mark Duggan was wrong) is the only thing on their minds.

What images are used?

Most images included in this specific article are of the police force as the article is questioning whether police did enough to stop the youths from causing all of this trouble during the riots. There is shots of the police officers actually stood watching these serious situations take place but not doing anything in the way of stopping them, in one shot there is a large group of police men looking on at a burning car and a huge gang of youths ruining these streets unnecessarily, many people have talked about the fact that the metropolitan police didn't have enough members of staff on duty during these riots, however in this image that whole questioning doesn't come into the agenda as there is more than enough people that can calm down the situation and stop it from resorting any further, but because they chose not to and just chose to stand and watch as people's homes and businesses are destroyed and their lives change forever.

The next few sets of images are mainly of police squad cars in different parts of the towns where the riots are taking place encase of any major emergencies where they need to take immediate action. No damage could be seen to these vehicles which is surprising as the youths mainly went to attack anything belonging to the police because of the social divide between them being so strong, as the two groups have totally different beliefs on these riots taking place. Underneath one of the images including a police riot van, which is bullet proof, the vehicle still doesn't seem to have any sign of being attacked, this maybe because as research shows the police officers can use plastic bullets on the youths to bring the riots under control, many may believe this is an approach that is slightly too far but if police officers can't control the youths in any other way because they are too scared their lives might be in danger than these actions would need to be put in place.

The rest of the images are the usual ones seen in the newspaper articles around this time, youths looting shops and also attacking them. They are all seen wearing the same 'stereotypical' chav outfits; hoodies, tracksuit bottoms and using head scarfs and other fabrics to cover up their identities from the police, this gives me the idea that they want to take part in all of this dangerous events but don't ever want to be caught or want their normal everyday lives to be affected. To me this isn't fair as they are ruining everyone elses lives so why shouldn't they be questioned about what they have done. However as you can see in one of the images, a prime example there are really only 3 people leading an attack on a Hackney clothing shop, the rest are just stood around watching, so to me they haven't been involved in anything to do with it but if the police then approached the situation they would all be prosecuted in some way for 'involvement', so it's images like these that need to be published in order for police to see who are actually the main culprits in all of this because not all youths are trouble causers.

How does the article construct representation of youth identity?

Is the article biased?

Are youths given a fair voice?

Once again this article reflects the identity of youths in a negative light because of there involvement in the riots and having the pictures to back up their evidence they have every right to explain their views. However this specific article is more focused around 'did the police do enough to stop the riots escalating into trouble?' so the youths are talked about in a negative way just like the rest of the newspapers but while explaining what they got up to there is also information regarding the police's actions that focused on an event, for example while youths were looting a small shop in Hackney or blowing up a car in the middle of a busy high street in both situations the police 'stood on the sidelines' and watched as towns were torn apart, excuses follow saying their wasn't enough officers on duty, but there was still no immediate sign of any of them trying to stop the youths from stealing people's personal items that they work everyday for or ruining cars/buildings just to prove a point, as soon as these situations started the police should have been straight onto them and figuring out ways they could stop them from getting any worse in the safest way possible. Another excuse was that they were worried about how out of control the youths could get and if any would try and attack them, this shouldn't be in anyway a problem as they are members of the society that people expect to help and save us from danger so when these riots erupted they should have been first on the scene stopping it. The youths are talked about in small detail as the focus is all around the police doing there job correctly, but they were still represented in the usual 'negativity' from newspapers opinions.

I don't believe they are being biased towards the police in this article as everything they talk about is backed up with quotes and photographic evidence for example these riots would not have gone on for 4 whole nights if the police stepped in on the first night and showed some authority over the towns and showed the youths exactly who they were 'messing' with so they may have stood down and these towns and local people would not be destroyed in many ways if this action was taken. They could be being biased towards the youths because again they are classing each individual who was present at the scene in a negative way explaining the violent attacks from the 'mobs' however I think specific evidence should be shown in order for the public to believe everyone there was involved in some way with the attacks, because in some of the images the youths are stood watching as others take the lead in attacking and looting shops so really they cannot be blamed for watching.
Once again this newspaper has not let youths give their opinion or feelings towards the riots and explain really why they have all decided to get revenge but take it out on the town instead of just the bad relationship they have with the police force, straight away this makes me think that these reporters are being really selfish and sly about the whole operation of creating this article as they have let the police officers explain about the amount of staff they used and what action they could of taken e.t.c e.t.c but again the youths are forgotten about so everyone can just make their own personal judgement of them, mainly negative because of the expressions and emotive language used agaisnt them throughout the report, but if they did give the youths chance to explain why then they may be able to get to the bottom of the riots beginning and understand how each of them have felt throughout.