What sensationalist language is used?
"disgusting and shocking"
This was said by the deputy mayor of London, just by mentioning someone of that high a profession giving their opinion on the situation that has occurred means it's a serious problem. These words where used to describe the scenes left over the last 2 nights that the riots had gone on for which suggests to people reading this article that the scenarios where really bad and the youths involved where of a bad nature, this may not be morally true but the media captivates many different groups into believing what they write in articles to be the only answer. After explaining just how bad the youths behavior was, he goes on to explain that the police did a "good job". This could be debatable as most of the people involved in the riots who were on lookers talked about how badly organised the police force where as they let people stand and ruin shops/vehicles while using dangerous object and shouting abuse without reacting in anyway, they all may have been fearing for how they would react to them but they are supposed to be of a higher authority and should act on these types of situations quickly. He goes onto explain people in the city do just go out on the look out to start violent attacks because it's in their nature which is a fair judgement as some people cannot help the way they have been brought up to be.
This was said by the deputy mayor of London, just by mentioning someone of that high a profession giving their opinion on the situation that has occurred means it's a serious problem. These words where used to describe the scenes left over the last 2 nights that the riots had gone on for which suggests to people reading this article that the scenarios where really bad and the youths involved where of a bad nature, this may not be morally true but the media captivates many different groups into believing what they write in articles to be the only answer. After explaining just how bad the youths behavior was, he goes on to explain that the police did a "good job". This could be debatable as most of the people involved in the riots who were on lookers talked about how badly organised the police force where as they let people stand and ruin shops/vehicles while using dangerous object and shouting abuse without reacting in anyway, they all may have been fearing for how they would react to them but they are supposed to be of a higher authority and should act on these types of situations quickly. He goes onto explain people in the city do just go out on the look out to start violent attacks because it's in their nature which is a fair judgement as some people cannot help the way they have been brought up to be.
"outrageous level of violence"
This quote was said by the MET police commander, she explained that the officers where shocked at how badly behaved the youths had been towards things that are apart of their own hometowns. Because their was such a high percentage of people who were involved in the riots it was hard for a small group of police officers to deal with the attacks, this also indicated to the youths that the quantity of police to them was of a lower number so it give them plenty of reasons and chances to attack them, as this whole situation started due to the death of Mark Duggan which was caused by a police officer so in fairness I do understand why they may be angry with them, however not all of them were involved so the fact that 9 of them were injured was slightly unnecessary, hence the reason why the word "outrageous" is used because it's not something you would expect to happen. It would have to be something very serious or interesting for this type of vocabulary to be used as it's usually linked to really serious or unexpected events, this rioting could be classed as just that as no one could have anticipated it to have got that out of hand in such a sort space of time and the way in which the large group of youths acted was not acceptable and broke the law in so many ways, but they could not be stopped.
What images are used?
Throughout this article only one image is shown. This shows a medium shot of a scene including two masked youths closest to the camera with a group of people behind them. One of the youths is stood covering he's face while the other is throwing a brick or some other object to the right, however the image does not show exactly what he is throwing the object at. I would suggest it would either be a building as most of them had been attacked during the riots or could have been police, because the relationship between the police force and the youths during this period of time had been lost as youths didn't believe they were in the wrong and thought they shouldn't have been getting blamed for things just because of the way they dress e.t.c. whereas police had been focused on by the media saying they hadn't done enough to stop the youths during this time and had stood back and watched for most of it. However none of this is shown in the image so I can't go into much detail about any situation, all I know is the youths look like they are doing something wrong or dangerous so no wonder people are questioning them on how these riots had started.
How does this article construct representation of youth identity?
Is the article biased?
Are youths given a fair voice?
They are seen in a negative light throughout this article as the situations are being discussed and the youths are at the height of each of the topics. Various events have been talked about here, from looting and attacking Currys to youths getting arrested for burglary of stolen goods e.t.c, when reading this article many could say the writer could have been talking about any types of groups, however the youths are clearly labelled and stand out as the "main culprits" in each situation, but I don't believe in anyway that the reporters are being biased towards the youths because plenty of examples have been given in relation to exactly what they have done and there intentions for it so they are all only commenting on truthful events that have happened over the 3 days that the riots took place. No youths have had chance to give their opinion/feedback on the riots in this article which I don't believe to be the correct approach to such a serious situation as there are two sides to every story and here there is only one which means the public would never get to know from a youths point of view why these events erupted into some of the worst scenes in English history. Although live coverage from the locations can be seen as the reporters "back up" for the information they leak it doesn't always show you the main trigger for the ambush to start and the whole group of people who seem to be involved, instead they would rather limit the amount of rioters seen in the shot and also show them in the middle of the attacks so they look as though they have attacked and looted for no actual reason, for people to have their own personal outlook on the riots and how they came about I think more reliable sources would need to be looked at.
No comments:
Post a Comment