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.

BBC News Article 8th August 2011

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14439970

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.

"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.

UK Riots BBC HUB Coverage 9th August 2011

Who do the reporters interview?

A news reader explains how the riots have developed over the past couple of days and what major problems had occurred. The main blaze of fire came from Croydon and a photographer caught a woman jumping for her life from a burning building. The rioters then come across a youth laid on the floor with blood coming from he's head, possibly had been attacked, they show that they are helping him before robbing he's bag and leaving him on the street.
Jane Ellison an MP, explains if your child comes home wearing a new pair of trainers or owns something that didn't below to them days before ask them some tough questions about how they get them and if you think they got them from looting, take them to the police station and hand them in because they need to learn from there mistakes. A shop owner reveals she came to her shop with clothes all threw and ruined, they are "ferral rats" as they shouldn't be let out in these situations.

What images are used in the broadcast? What does this suggest about representation of the riots?

The first set of images show a divide of the rioters and the police because the two groups do not have the same opinions and feelings towards these attacks being had on society because of one mans death. Fireworks are then seen being let off by the rioters towards the police, which is such a dangerous thing to do because they could have killed one of them, however I don't think that was a problem they thought about when letting the fireworks off because they have so much anger towards the Police force at this time. This was the third night of rioting but they were still determined to cause upset in the main towns, looting was still carrying on as well as large and up roaring fires caused across most of the towns effecting residents who have had nothing to do with the situation themselves, however most of the rioters had a reason for taking part because of Mark Duggan being killed, they wanted to give their opinion and voice on the justice system.

Images of various people such as MP's, shop owners e,t,c explaining their true feelings towards how they have personally been affected by the riots and how it will change their lives in a negative way. The met office then explain that every police cell in London was full to capacity because of that many rioters being involved in all of this chaos.
A woman, the chief executive of the housing association in Tottenham, who is being interviewed in the studio then explains that the youths have "no direction and motivation" in their lives which is why many of them have resorted to the violent acts. Because any little bit of excitement they will latch onto, mainly because they haven't got anything else to do, so I think she is mainly blaming the government for not giving youths the chance to have have freedom and meeting new people. Because if they organised youth projects in build up areas, youths would be less likely to walk the streets due to having other activities to take part in, which is definitely a motivation strategy.

Is the broadcast biased?

Are youths given a fair voice?

I don't believe that the broadcasters are biased against the youths because actual footage is being shown which lets viewers see just how much trouble they have caused and how easily their behavior can change from having a peaceful protest to stand up for Mark Duggan, to going out of control and causing a lot of trouble in various parts of the UK, mainly because their relationship with the police was of such a negative level that they wanted to get revenge in other ways. However the results where so extreme that they affected harmless citizens who had nothing to do with it. This is just my personal judgement on the youths from the clip I have embedded on my blog, when watching it again I have realised that the youths aren't given a fair voice agaisnt these situations that have occurred because this particular news broadcast shows no evidence of youngsters giving their say on what has happened or even thought about at all. Instead various different members of the public have slated them in a negative light by putting all the blame onto "youths" for what has happened within the riots, however this is not a positive way to look at the situations as some "youths" out there could be friends with people who have been included in these terrible circumstances, yet they will still be seen as the "bad people" by the police e.t.c because of how youths are stereotyped.
Overall the broadcast all together I wouldn't say was biased because all the points they explain about the youths is backed up with the clips to show the truth behind what they have done, however they have not let youths give their say on the situation so no "fair voice" has been allowed, instead they have made their own accusations towards a group of people who may or may not have been involved, which I don't believe to be fair as everyone deserves to explain.

London Riots Update Day Break 9th August 2011

Who do reporters interview?

The news coverage begins with the news reader explaining exactly where the riots have took place and what the latest news is for each town. Firstly Cordelia Kretzschmar speaks from Croydon in south London after spending the night there which she described as "terrifying" and the police updated her saying that the situations in Croydon are far worse than anywhere else in London. This was all because of people she classes as "mobs". She spoke to one woman who had been trapped in a burning building for some time with kids also trapped for hours before police noticed, this shows ordinary families who had nothing to do with the riots had also been badly affected by the actions of others.
A masked youth then spoke out saying youths are angry right now because the government isn't treating them correctly.
The filming moves onto Enfield in north London where a building was on fire all because youths wanted computer games, dvds and cds. They then left a "burning inferno which got out of control".

What images are used in the broadcast? What does this suggest about representation of the riots?

Images of rioters looting and major fires being started are shown at the beginning of the report, the news reader explains how many towns have been affected by the riots with correspondents in each town explaining exactly what trouble and violence has been caused.

On the screen behind her a well known image of a hooded youth standing infront of a burning down building, this image is used in most "riot" related reports, so many people would siamese that youths are the main culprits who are involved in these riots. For example when they see any other hooded person in the street they would unfairly judge them all because this image is focused around "riot chaos", they could have easily just used an image of a burned down building but they have focused it genuinely on one type of group. A live scene is shown of Croydon with horrific sights of burnt down buses and buildings and then explains that mobs of young people trying to set out to destroy their own community, however no images of the mobs are shown at this point in the report, however it does suggest once again youths being represented as the main problem during these riots.

Such a strong and inflamed fire is then shown with many on lookers running for their lives, it just shows that the situation got way out of hand and there was not enough Police on the scene to protect everyone, mainly because they didn't realise just how bad it would get. A scene is then produced of masses of Police cars and workers marching down the roads of Clapham where the streets where like "ghost towns" because everyone had been evacuated for their own safety.

The next live report shows thick black smoke behind the reporters head due to a massive warehouse fire which he again explains it was down to the youths, but no images of them are actually shown, this does make me think that this whole report is linked mainly to the representation of the riots being down to youths.

Is the broadcast biased?

Are youths given a fair voice?

All the way through the reports they talk about the youths and mobs when it comes to the major attacks on the buildings and looting shops and other places. I do believe they are slightly biased towards these youngsters because when they explain about the damage and disruption that has been caused there is no actual evidence of the youths being involved in any of it, so I think its slightly unfair that they aren't given a voice in these situations to defend themselves as the report focuses on just the reporters personal opinions and comments on what has happened over the past 3 days.
Other reports I have looked at have given youths a fair voice in these situations to explain themselves and let the nation understand why some of them may have been involved and done some of the horrific things like looting and ruining other residents lives on the street. Some will give valid reasons to why they have been involved and some may just say because they are following the crowd. However other youths who wear specific and discret outfits linked to "youth culture" may be really protective of themselves and explain that they had no link to the riots at all and are really upset and angry for people pointing the finger at them for something they didn't do.

But this report symbolises the youths as one thing, negative which isn't right because of the situation being so serious, the argument needs to be balanced.

BBC News Tottenham 7th August 2011

Who do the reporters interview?

A reporter from the BBC news studio introduces a correspondent who explains the goings on that have been happening in Tottenham the following day. He then goes onto interview Commander Adrian Hanstock who works for the metropolitan police, he explained that they let the protest take place because they understand people have their own opinions/feelings towards what happened, however he didn't anticipate the violence to become that bad, so when they realised exactly how bad it was getting they stepped up more resources and brought more police officers e.t.c in. A response then came from David Lammy, a local labour MP. Throughout he's speech you can feel the anger he has towards the rioters as he says "For those who wanted to come to Tottenham to cause violence, to stay away!" He also explains the town has spent 25 years building up trust and community and it's been ruined by mindless nonsense. A masked black man was then interviewed, he's name was not given but he discussed how Mark Duggan was he's friend and he can't in anyway see how he would jump out of a car (which is surrounded by police and throw fire) because it "wouldn't make sense".
A correspondent is then seeing walking around the estate were Duggan was attacked and chats to Sonia (full name didn't want given out) who explains many teenagers have left school and don't have jobs and it's not because they don't want to work it's because the unemployment rate is so high. Two local boys explain how the main youth centre has been closed down due to high wage cuts and that's the place many of them hung around so they are being affected. The other talks about the police's relationship with youths is not pleasant and they feel like they have to smash things up or cause a problem before their voice gets heard.

What images are used in the broadcast? What does this suggest about representation of the riots?

Most of the images show battles between the rioters and the police. Then other images show the damage that has been caused in all of the towns, major fires, looting, violence towards others e.t.c. There are also quite a few shots of the location of flats where Mark Duggan was killed which give a clear understanding to viewers about the community he lived in and by having a recording of one of he's friends explaining how he shouldn't have been killed shows how close these youths where to each other and how one man getting killed can escalate into such a big situation.

Is the broadcast biased?

Throughout the whole news report the reader explains how violent the youths have been and how much they have effected the community that people of Tottenham have to live in. I don't necessarily think that they are being biased towards the youths and targeting them in a negative light, just like the previous clip they are just telling the viewers exactly what has gone on. In this broadcast especially they have interviewed a few youths but also MPs and local residents to show they have let everyone equally have their own say.

Are youths given a fair voice?

Compared to the other clip this one actually shows footage of youths being interviewed and having the chance to give their opinion and say about what's gone on. They explain exactly why the riots may have started and why it was mainly youths involved, I believe that each of them get long enough to fight their ground and explain what they want to say just as much as the other people that are interviewed because no one speaks over the youths and goes agaisnt what they are saying because they have no right, why would they talk in front of the world to lie about something, just because most of the rioters where youths doesn't mean everyone of them is.

London Riot Interview BBC 6th August 2011

Who do the reporters interview?

In this specific clip the news reporter from BBC news studio interviews a correspondent who is in the middle of watching the riots in Tottenham take place, however no interviews take place in this broadcast because I believe it would be just too dangerous to ask any passers by their opinions due to the situation that's occurring at the time. (vandals smashing up police cars with bricks). He did ask one person why he was blocking the camera, this resulted in him getting pushed around which caused the woman delivering the news from the studio to say " we will leave it there" just because she knew it was getting out of hand.

However there is a voice over from a local resident called Sam who explains what's been going on, but he isn't actually getting interviewed at the scene, it's over the phone. He explains that he has never ever seen any problems in the street that's being attacked at the moment, so it just shows that anyone and everyone want to get involved in the riots.

What images are used in the broadcast? What does this suggest about representation of the riots?

Because this news coverage is live, there are no images or earlier events shown, it's all just what was happening while the news was being broadcasted. However while the news correspondents explain what has been going on you can see youths throwing things at police cars and many of them just watching what's going on around the area, with some taking photos and videos on their mobile phones as police are dealing with someone being attacked further down the road so no cautions can be taken as there is no one around to stop them. This shows the riots first hand as it is live, it shows that youths are represented as bad people because of the actions they are taking towards peoples property, also many of the youths are trying to hide the news camera from filming and most of them are masked because they don't want to be caught, this shows they are worried about the police catching them but they are still willing to risk it by taking part in such horrific events.

Is the broadcast biased?

I don't believe this broadcast is biased because the news reporter is just updating us on the situation that has occurred and everything that is happening is live so nothing can be made up. All the reporter was doing is explaining exactly what was taking place and it was the youths themselves trying to remove the news camera out of sight. This specific video showed no sign of the reporters being biased at all.

Are the youths given a fair voice?

No youths actually speak in this video, however the reporter doesn't necessarily have any bad words to say about them, as I said above he is only explaining what's happening as he sees it. He does ask one youth why he is trying to push the camera away to stop filming, he doesn't get a response, instead the youth tries to push the news reporter over. This alone shows how violent they can get about a situation, just because they don't want to be filmed encase they are caught by the police. So I believe what they have shown is just true behavior from the youths of today.