Section A Overview

The explanation of Section A of the exam from OCR is as follows:

Candidates answer two compulsory questions. 

The first requires them to describe and evaluate their skills development over the course of their production work, from Foundation Portfolio to Advanced Portfolio. 

The second asks them to identify one production and evaluate it in relation to one theoretical concept.

Question 1(a) requires candidates to describe and evaluate their skills development over the course of their production work, from Foundation Portfolio to Advanced Portfolio. 

The focus of this evaluation must be on skills development, and the question will require them to adapt this to one or two specific production practices. 

The list of practices to which questions will relate is as follows:

• Digital Technology
• Creativity
• Research and planning
• Post-production
• Using conventions from real media texts

Question 1(b) requires candidates to select one production and evaluate it in relation to a media concept. In the examination, questions will be set using one of these concepts only.

The list of concepts to which questions will relate is as follows:

• Genre
• Narrative
• Representation
• Audience
• Media language

Media language refers to the ways in which media producers make meaning in ways that are specific to the medium in which they are working and how audiences come to be literate in ‘reading’ such meaning within the medium. 

For example, the ‘language of film’ would include all elements of use of the camera, sound, editing and mise-en-scene. 

Examples of Past Questions

Firstly;

The events were labelled the London 'riots’. 

• What are the connotations of the word ‘riot’?

When somebody is rioting it usually means that they are rejecting authority, and it is usually a more violent protest. riots can be very aggressive and costly and are usually politically based as they are fighting against the order.

• Why not ‘civil unrest’, ‘dispute’ or ‘protest’?

They did not use the terms civil unrest or dispute or svn protest as these terms are simply to soft and weak to reflect the emotions and aggression which was shown. another reason why is because they might want to prosecute the people who where in the "riots" so they would give them a much harsher label to get their point across, so instantly people would believe that they are doing something wrong, because of the preconceptions which they have on riots.

One of the most popular images used by newspapers was the iconic image of a masked man on the streets of Hackney in front of a burning car.  

Here is the image as it was used by The Guardian newspaper.

• Why was this image used by the newspaper? 

This image was used by the newspapers as it clearly identified the points which they where trying to get across. because hoodies and track suits are commonly associated with teens and youths, this was the perfect image to show that the people who where doing these "riots" where teens and youths, because of the clearly identified attire. now they had clearly identified who is in the riots, they then show what they where doing. This is shown by the burning car in the background. showing the burning car tells us that the youths are causing significant and costly damage to other peoples properties and they show a lack of respect to the owner, as long as they cause trouble. Because the hooded "youth" is causally strolling past the burning cars it shows that they don't care, about what happening, and somebody who doesn't care about their scions no matter how violent and volatile it is "is a danger to society" and will burn it down.

• What does this image represent?

Overall the image represents the lack of respect of peoples property and clear violence which the youths are capable of, making them a danger to society.

The report accompanying the above picture in The Guardian read as follows:

The prime minister cut short his holiday and flew back to Britain as London witnessed devastating scenes of violence stretching the emergency services beyond limit on a third night of rioting in the capital.

Buildings were torched, shops ransacked, and officers attacked with makeshift missiles and petrol bombs as gangs of hooded and masked youths laid waste to streets right across the city.

The sheer number of incidents – including in Hackney, Croydon, Peckham, Lewisham, Clapham and Ealing – seemingly overwhelmed the Metropolitan police at times, who had poured 1,700 extra officers onto the streets.

Disturbances continued into the early hours on a breathtaking scale, and they spread outside London for the first time with riots reported in Birmingham and Liverpool.

David Cameron, forced to break off from holiday in Tuscany, was this morning due to chair a meeting of the government's emergency committee, Cobra. He was travelling on a UK military flight leaving Italy at 3am. Asked why the prime minister had now decided to return, a Downing Street source said: "The situation has become more serious."

Officers from Thames Valley, Essex, Kent, Surrey and City of London were drafted in to support the Met. But apparent "copycat" riots continued to spread in the wake of Tottenham's riots on Saturday precipitated by the fatal shooting by police of Mark Duggan, 29, a father of four, last Thursday. So far 225 people have been arrested and 36 charged.

The violence erupted in daylight in Hackney, east London, where police confronted rioters hurling missiles and setting fire to bins and cars. One officer could be seen lying on the ground after being struck on his shield by a missile.

In Hackney's Pembury Estate, the centre of the violence in east London, masked youths – both men and women – helped carry debris, bins, sticks and motorbikes, laying them across the roads to form a flaming boundary to the estate.

Several buildings were set alight in Croydon, south London, one massive fire consuming the 100-year-old Reeves furniture store. The fires were so severe that approach roads into Croydon were thick with smoke leaving some residents struggling to see or breathe. "Words fail me. It's just gone, it's five generations. My father is distraught at the moment. It's just mindless thuggery," said owner Trevor Reeves.

A bus was torched in Peckham as police struggled to respond to the spread of sporadic incidents. Witnesses said a 100-strong mob cheered as a shop in the centre of Peckham was torched and one masked thug shouted: "The West End's going down next."

A baker's next door was also alight. One onlooker said: "The mob were just standing there cheering and laughing. Others were just watching on from their homes open-mouthed in horror."

A trail of bins and abandoned vehicles were ablaze in Lewisham.

At Clapham junction, looters – some as young as 14 – moved from shop to shop laughing as they smashed shop windows and clearing shelves of stock, unimpeded by over-burdened police.

Tim Godwin, acting Metropolitan police commissioner, made a direct appeal to parents to get their children off the streets. "I do urge now that parents start contacting their children, and ask themselves where their children are," he said. "There are far too many spectators who are getting in the way of the police operation to tackle criminal thuggery and burglary." He said "significant disorder" had broken out in many communities. These included incidents in Camden, Bethnal Green where a Tesco was looted and two officers hurt, Stratford, Notting Hill, Colliers Wood and Dalston.

Reassuring Londoners police were there in numbers, Godwin added: "We remain steadfast and determined."

The unrest spread beyond London with West Midlands police confirming outbreaks of disorder in Birmingham city centre. Shops including a branch of Louis Vuitton had windows smashed and were looted. An unmanned police station in Handsworth was torched. Extra officers were being sent into the streets of Britain's second city.

Merseyside police also confirmed 'a number of isolated outbreaks of disorder," including burning cars and criminal damage in south Liverpool.

Boris Johnson, mayor of London, also cut his holiday in North America short and was returning overnight. Kit Malthouse, London's deputy mayor of policing, said: "I don't think anybody could have predicted this sort of horrendous spectacle." As the home secretary, Theresa May, broke off her holiday to return to London, she condemned the "sheer criminality" of the violence. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Stephen Kavanagh said one-third more officers were available on Monday night than on Sunday, when shops were ransacked and torched in Brixton, south London, and trouble reported in Enfield, Edmonton, Walthamstow and Islington.

Kavanagh vowed to deliver "speedy justice" for Londoners, condemning the waves of looting as "disgusting behaviour, ripping apart people's livelihoods and businesses".

In a bid to contain the trouble , Scotland Yard introduced special powers in four areas – Lambeth, Haringey, Enfield and Waltham Forest, allowing stop and search without reasonable suspicion. The section 60 powers were invoked at midnight on Sunday. One incident of stop and search in Hackney was reportedly the catalyst for violence which erupted in Mare Street shortly after 4pm, and saw local hooded youths battle police.

The Guardian understands senior officers are prepared to add more areas to the list. The special powers have been perceived as targeting certain ethnic groups, thus fuelling tensions.

Meanwhile, the maker of the BlackBerry smartphones, Research in Motion, said it would co-operate with a police investigation into claims its popular BlackBerry Messenger service played a key role in organising the London riots.

Brixton bore the brunt of Sunday's violence. The Lambeth council leader, Steve Reed, said: "We are asking the mayor's office for additional police for tonight and the next few nights." Condemning the "copycat activity", he said: "Somebody described it as gangs of kids doing Supermarket Sweep. It was Curry's where they were after plasma screen TVs, and H&M and Foot Locker where it was clothes and trainers. It wasn't about social issues, it was an opportunity to go on the rob."

Deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, visiting Tottenham, said the violence would leave "big scars" on the community. Surveying the wreckage after the torching of businesses and homes in Tottenham High Road, he spoke to Steve Moore, who lost his jewellery shop in Saturday's violence. "I'm devastated, it's completely gone. My shop just doesn't exist anymore," Moore told him.

Referring to the "copycat" violence across London, Clegg said: "Let's be clear, the violence we saw last night had absolutely nothing to do with the death of Mr Duggan. It was needless, opportunist theft and violence – nothing more, nothing less."

Boris Johnson released a statement describing the scenes of violence and destruction as "utterly appalling".

"I understand the need for urgent answers into the shooting incident that resulted in the death of a young man and I've sought reassurances that the IPCC are doing exactly that," he said. "But, let's be clear – these acts of sheer criminality across London are nothing to do with this incident and must stop now."

• How does the manner in which The Guardian have presented information potentially affect the collective identity of all young people in a negative way?

Just in second paragraph the guardian already starts to give blame to the riots to the youth. the guardian refers to the youth and only the youth so anything which comes after this paragraph is going to be about the youth. in the middle section of this article they focus a lot on the prim minister,  and other positions being called back from their holidays. this shows that the problem had gotten so bad it became a national problem which required some of the highest in authority to stop all they where doing and divert their attention to these teens, and it also then refers them to being burdens to the police. This shows that overall that they newspapers is saying that young people are nothing but annoyances to the police and the public.

the last section where they talk about the relation of the riots to the murder trial was where the opinions are then truly formed as they say that the people who took part in the riots where not interested in social issues it was an opportunity to go on the rob." so this makes the youths also look like they have no morals as they would take advantage of such a horrific matter and belittle it by turning it in to a chance to steel some trainers. What the guardian does is separate the murder trials from the riots completely so it looks ike the riots was just a rampage of thieving youths who just found their chance. and most proper would take this preferred reading of the text as the people who read this news paper are mostly middle aged middle working to middle class people who dissociate them selves to the sort of people who are describes in the paper.

Secondly;

The Daily Mirror reported of “Young thugs with fire in their eyes and nothing but destruction
on their minds.” 

This comment accompanied a front page with the headline “Yob rule” 

• How has the event been represented by The Daily Mirror through their choice words and image?

The term young rule shows that the youth is trying to rebel against the government in some from and they want to have more control or power, but its the term yob when you brake it down which has a greater effect as it means rude loud and aggressive youth. slits not a matter of youth rule it that its the loud aggressive youths how are in this category. however they are the saying that everyone at these riots was young and only the young are to blame. they also use the term "fire in their eyes" this shows that they are angered and they would do anything at this stage therefor they are a danger to society, they are also most demonising them as they have fire in their eye which refers back to Stanley Cohen term of folk devils being created by the media.


Thirdly;

Max Hastings wrote an article in The Daily Mail with some controversial representations of
youth. 

The article can be viewed by clicking here.

As you read the article, think about how youth are represented.


• Explain how the collective identity of youth is potentially affected by the article, using quotations to support your arguments.

How Media Demonises Teenagers

CLICK HERE to read an interesting article from The Independent concerning the media's portrayal of teenagers in the UK. 

The use of the word 'demonise' is interesting in itself if we remember that Stan Cohen used the term 'folk devils' when reflecting on the portrayal of teenagers following the Clacton / Brighton fights in 1964. There seems a clear association between young people and language connoting evil

Dick Hebdige "Hiding In The Light"

I have previously introduced you to Dick Hebdige. We talked about his 1979 book titled 'Subculture - the Meaning of Style' and I gave you the quotation below as one you should learn:

"Members of  a subculture often subject their membership through a distinctive and symbolic use of style, which includes fashions, music and mannerisms" - Hebdige (1979)

Hebdige also wrote a book called 'Hiding in the Light' which was published in 1988. It is here that he discussed the concept of youth being represented as either a threat or a non-threat. 

The first chapter of this book opens as below:

Hebdige's hypothesis here is that society in general (through the media) are only concerned in representing youth when there is something negative to say. He discusses the birth of the concept of the 'teenager' and goes on to assess the effect of consumerism and the move from a one-dimensional representation of youth, to a two-dimensional representation of "youth as trouble, youth as fun". He writes that teenagers are seen as either "troublesome youth" or "fun-loving youth."

Hebdige sees 'youth as trouble' as being a political representation whereas 'youth as fun is commercially driven.

So, when you look at representations of British Youth Culture in the past can you see evidence to support Hebdige's thoughts? You can read 'Hiding in the Light' in full by CLICKING HERE.

Thinking of contemporary media, that is to say the media from 2010 onwards, is there evidence to support Hebdige's assertion that British Youth are portrayed as either:

"Troublesome youth"

or,

"Fun-loving youth"

TASK

Copy and paste this post across to your own blog.

Create 2 more posts for your blog; 1 titled "Youth As Trouble" and the other titled "Youth As Fun"

In each of these posts, compile a selection of images from contemporary UK media (film, television, newspapers, magazines) which shows representations of British Youth in this particular light.

What Are Moral Panics? Hayley Burns

What are 'moral panics'?

Hayley Burns

If we do not take steps to preserve the purity of blood, the Jew will destroy civilisation by poisoning us all. (Hitler, 1938)

Surely if the human race is under threat, it is entirely reasonable to segregate AIDS victims, otherwise the whole of mankind could be engulfed. (The Daily Star, 2 December 1988)

Although an extreme illustration, the above quotes serve to set up the creation of a 'moral panic'. Just as Hitler's 'facts' were unfounded, so too were The Daily Star and what resulted from both incidents was, in effect, the persecution of two minority groups within society. Hitler's quote stemmed from the use of propaganda, and although it would be fair to say that the essence of what is termed 'propaganda' does not exist in such a force today, it is nevertheless evident that what was quoted from The Daily Star is tantamount to propaganda. Throughout history, the mass media industry has been utilised as a tool to appeal to the public at large, particularly in the field of politics, where people in a position of power can tempt society into believing what they want them to believe. As Eldridge describes "The media, wittingly or unwittingly, reproduce the definitions of the powerful." [Eldridge 1997: 65] This document will examine not only the essence and origin of the term 'moral panic' but the very important nature of the media's involvement in the whole process of creating a 'moral panic'.

It was Stanley Cohen, in his work, Folk Devils and Moral Panics. (1987) who first coined the term 'moral panics'. He defined the concept as a sporadic episode which, as it occurs, subjects society to bouts of moral panic, or in other terms, worry about the values and principles which society upholds which may be in jeopardy. He describes its characteristics as "a condition, episode, person or group of persons [who] become defined as a threat to societal values and interests." [Cohen, 1987: 9] Cohen goes on to discuss the way in which the mass media fashions these episodes, or stylises them, amplifying the nature of the facts and consequently turning them into a national issue, when the matter could have been contained on a local level.

Cohen's study originated from his interest in the youth culture and its perceived potential threat to social order. Throughout each era, a group has emerged who 'fits' the criteria, such as the Teddy Boys, Mods and Rockers, Skinheads and Hells Angels. They all become associated with certain types of violence, which in turn also provoke public reaction and emotion, as topics in their own right. Such issues as football hooliganism, drug abuse, vandalism and political demonstrations, all struck a chord in public opinion, but the impact might not have been on such a large scale, were it not for the part the mass media play in the exposition of the facts.

Cohen's study was primarily about the Mods and Rockers of the 1960's and the treatment they received in the public eye. The main criticism was that they were seen as a threat to law and order largely through the way the mass media represented them, in the form of what Cohen calls the 'control culture'. Largely this refers to the media sensationalising an event and then calling for a punishment to be set to persecute the offenders. As Eldridge notes "In the process and as part of the dramatic element, scapegoats and folk devils are located and are woven into the narrative." [Eldridge 1997: 61] In other terms society cannot accept responsibility for its own failures and so they look to find someone who can be incriminated.

The 'amplification' which takes place through the media's work serves to appeal to the public so that they concur with ready-made opinions about the course of action to be taken, and these opinions have been found from the members of what Cohen refers to as the 'moral barricade', i.e. bishops, politicians and editors. Combined with the opinions of the 'experts' who are wheeled out to give their diagnosis, they reach an agreement about how to cope with the situation in hand, and the problem either disappears or at least deteriorates.

There are various ways in which these 'panics' are dealt with. Sometimes they aren't novel topics; they're topics which have existed in society for a considerable time but a particular event has triggered the significance. Although generally they pass as quickly as they came and are long forgotten, there are occasions when the consequences and repercussions are so long lasting and so much in the public eye that they can affect legal and social policy or as Eldridge puts it, even the way society perceives itself.

In Cohen's study the first recorded conflict of the Mods and Rockers, in Clacton on Easter Sunday 1964, set the scene for other resorts of its kind. The two groups fought with some beach huts being vandalised and some windows broken. Ninety seven people were arrested. On the Monday morning the story had been a headline in every national newspaper with such titles as "Day of Terror by Scooter Groups" (The Daily Telegraph) and "Wild Ones Invade Seaside - 97 Arrests" (Daily Mirror). Cohen's main criticism about the media's coverage of the episode is that it was subject to exaggeration and distortion of the facts. Such phrases as 'orgy', 'riot', 'siege', and 'screaming mob' were incorporated into the text, and exaggeration of the numbers involved all resulted in the perception of the event as a much more violent affair than the facts support.

Cohen's 'control culture' failed to deal with the problem presented to them, which is why the topic of youth culture has continued to reappear at various points in our society. The drugs abuse issue brought to the fore so many years ago has reared its head again in the form of the Leah Betts media circus episode, which resulted in several popstars being extradited from the public eye. January 16, 1995, during a radio interview, Brian Harvey, of East 17 fame, said that he enjoyed taking ecstasy and other substances. Within hours his group's songs were banned by thirteen radio stations, a DJ smashed one of their singles on air and their services were no longer required for the launch of the mid-week lottery show. Calcutt, in his article, "Ecstasy and Apostasy" notes that Harvey has been branded a modern day heretic. Not only was he made to retract his statement, but he was sacked from his band and threatened with prosecution for incitement. It wasn't long before Paul and Janet Betts were brought in to give their ever so knowledgeable vies on the subject. The journalists adopted a 'pious' tone whilst talking to them afraid that to contradict them at all would be offensive to their plight. As one journalist, Decca Aitkenhead, summed up in her article in Independent on Sunday (January 19) "In post Leah Betts Britain, ecstasy is the equivalent of slaughtering babies".

What failed to come to the forefront of the Leah Betts debate was that she actually managed to drown herself with the excess of water intake as a result of taking the pill. Many of the facts were misconstrued or omitted from the newspaper coverage. For example, in 1986, Glasgow Social Services Director, Mary Hartnoll, was persecuted for writing a report in which she calculated that "ecstasy is a relatively safe drug. The risk of death is calculated at one in six point eight million. (The risk of dying from an ordinary dose of aspirin is greater)". Paul Betts declared her 'totally irresponsible' and told her to 'get her facts right'. They were.

In a similar fashion, the media have been involved in giving false information about several matters, including BSE, E-coli and the AIDS virus and HIV. Indeed several newspapers declared in the early 1980's that HIV could only be contracted and passed on through homosexual activity. This along with the opening statements had an increasingly damaging effect on the gay community. One of the most prominent media debates of recent times comes in the form of the murder of James Bulger. In November 1991, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables tortured and killed James. Thirty eight people saw him being dragged along the shopping centre floor, and not one of them intervened.

The debate centred around three issues, the role of the 'active citizen', absent fathers and child violence. As Ann Bradley points out in A Morality Play for All Times, in the ten years between 1982 and 1991, just ten children under the age of five were killed by strangers. The Bulger murder was not a symbol of society in 90's Britain but "the media's reaction to it was" [Bradley 1994] The case was seen to encompass every negative aspect of society which is evident in today's world. The Times described it as a "reminder of humanity's most ancient and bestial instincts" and with comments like these the advocates from the 'Back to Basics' school of thought relished the opportunity to preach to society about modern social values and the need to return to a vigilant, (nosey) network of neighbours looking out for one another. This idea was only strengthened further by the court ordered appearance of some witnesses. Bryan Appleyard in The Independent noted "people like is saw him and failed to save him. This was our own special slice of life of evil, we owned it, it belonged to us."

Along with the tirade about citizenship came the debate about absent fathers and dysfunctional families. As Bradley remembers The Daily Mail described Jon as a "classic production of a broken home" implying that many children murder on a regular basis if there's trouble at home. He adds that the 'friends' claiming to have noticed the "atmosphere of neglect in the absence of a father figure" were more likely to be academics and social workers.

The case managed to highlight a number of issues about authoritarian controls and censorship, particularly regarding the killers' alleged viewing of the horror film 'Child's Play III', involving a doll who comes to life to wreak havoc. The 'copycat' theory of films dates back to the series of 'Video Nasties' but flared up when Judge Morland attributed influence to the video: "I suspect that exposure to violent video films may in part be an explanation." What was revealed after watching the security tape and the film, was that there was little resemblance and the case purely coincidental, but it was enough to provide a springboard for the media's anti-video stance.

The Times, January 22, 1994, used the word 'alarm' to sensationalise the more accurate term 'concern', This sensationalisation in turn brought a new urgency to the debate about screen violence, The Times in its conclusion asked "What kind of urban culture allowed such material to circulate freely in the homes of young children?" and The Independent on March 20, 1994 added "We must protect young minds". As Walker points out in his article "Suffer the Little Children", "Aligning themselves with the angels, both influential newspapers left no doubt that they had sighted the devil and he was making for 'young minds'" [French 1997: 94] Once again the media, newspapers in particular, exaggerated the truth of the matter. It was never proven that the killers saw the film which caused so much commotion. Even if they had this would not have been justification to allege that the circulation of 'potentially damaging' films was happening in every household as these newspapers had suggested.

To expand slightly on the opening thoughts of this examination, it is important to examine exactly what the role of the media is, and Jock Young in his essay "The Myth of the Drug Taker in the Mass Media" (Young 1981) provides an interesting explanation. His theory centres around a 'consensualist society', building on the idea that the majority of people in society share common values of reality and what is acceptable and not acceptable. Generally topics outside of their shared ideas are deemed wrong or detrimental. In the same way Young believes that the mass media shares this opinion. So it follows that its function is to reinforce the popular consciousness, although this can be regarded as a "sophisticated form of propaganda" [Eldridge 1997: 63] which plays on such emotions as discontent and insecurity without actually manipulating in the true sense of the word. Eldridge explains "Rather than manipulating in the sense of trying to get people to change their views or politics, by reinforcing what is already present in society it gives the public what it wants." [Eldridge 1997: 63]

However, it is important to note that 'moral panics' are not only created by the newspapers but on several occasions they are discussed within the papers. Eldridge quotes an example from The Guardian in 1993, "The Moral Panic and the Facts", which discusses a Conservative Party Conference: "What many feared was going to be a 'cost panic' conference over welfare expenditure turned instead into a 'moral panic' over unmarried mothers". [November 9, 1993]. Ironically the press criticised the conference for focusing on myths which had apparently already been dealt with in a Cabinet briefing paper, when they themselves are guilty of partaking in such witch hunts.

On this occasion the myths provided served as justification to take measures to introduce the "withdrawal of benefits entitlement and new restrictions on access to housing". [Eldridge 1997: 71] Cabinet members accused young women of getting pregnant merely to be entitled to a considerable amount of state benefits and suddenly there is talk of restrictions. Hypocritically The Guardian noted: "they have clearly abandoned rational policy making in favour of undiluted political prejudice". [9 November 1993]. Obviously the media's stance on 'moral panics' is ambiguous as they both use and criticise the concept.

A recent illustration of this type of conflict can be found in the story of Elian Gonzalez and the struggle his father had to allow his son to come back into his care. Elian has been placed in the middle of a fierce immigration battle since November after he was rescued from a shipwreck which killed his mother and left him the only survivor. The people on board had been trying to escape from Cuba to make a new life for themselves in America. Elian was staying in the care of relatives in Miami who believed he would be safer staying in the USA with them than return to dangerous Cuba. The media have rallied around this event and certain aspects have brought attention to the political implications. USA has been feuding with Cuba for over forty years, stemming from the Cuban Missile Crisis days. The attempt to keep Elian in America is seen to be a type of one upmanship; a victory for America over Cuba. Cuba accused America of kidnapping the boy and his father, who had joint custody of Elian, and who had no idea of his mother's attempt to flee, demanded the return of his son.

Earlier in the week of April 17, 2000 US Attorney General Janet Reno ordered a particularly unnecessary retrieval of Elian from his relative's home. Armed officers were sent in to snatch him and then deliver him to Washington where he could meet up with his father again. Once again, the media reported incidents in an exaggerated fashion. The Mirror, Monday April 24, 2000, stated that Elian was 'snatched' by 'heavily-armed' officers and 'bundled' into a vehicle. The photographs provided show two officers wrestling with a young girl and an officer armed, walking through a street set on fire. Their entire execution of this article is sensationalised and biased. Similar photographs in other tabloids show the moment Elian was taken with a debate arising about whether the officer taking him was pointing the gun at Elian.

In this tug-of-war battle, the nation has become split. There were riots on the streets of Washington and Miami as Cubans vandalised nearby cars and lit fires. Even the presidents, past and present, are divided on the subject. Bill Clinton backed the decision to take Elian whilst George Bush declared it as defying "the values of America" and "not an image a freedom-loving nation wants to show the world".

The sad truth about the information we receive from our mass media industry is that more often than not there is a hidden agenda, a bias nature which ultimately prevents the public from understanding the essence of the truth of the situation. 'Moral panics', it could be argued have been in existence even before the media came into being. For instance the basis of Arthur Miller's The Crucible , a series of witch hunts only became so strong because people became caught up in the heresy. However, the media's involvement must not be underestimated. It is society's inability to accept responsibility for its failures and problems which results in the creation of these panics and society's resistance to place blame upon itself which incriminates the 'scapegoats', those who don't fit into the normal world around themselves.

The 'moral panics' over recent years have essentially tapped into the public's fears for their safety and the safety of society in years to come. When something as tragic as the James Bulger murder is brought to our attention, it allows, however unfortunate, the powerful to enforce their ideas and rules about the government of our country. After all, as Bradley puts it, who would argue about the installment of more CCTV cameras in public areas after it was so essential to identify James' murderers and who would argue against banning violent films if it would prevent murder, because at the heart of the matter, it you were to do so, you would feel as if you had the responsibility of the death of a child on your conscience. Essentially the mass media thrives on sensation and exaggeration to boost their sales. The choice of vocabulary they incorporate and the types of photographs they show have a certain bias to them because they want society to perceive these events in a certain way. Although they claim to reinforce public opinion it is worth asking whether they are a voice for the people or a propaganda tool for the rich and powerful.

It is fitting to end the discussion with a quote from Cohen himself, who sums up why the 'moral panic' will continue to thrive in society :

More moral panics will be generated and other, as yet nameless, folk devils will be created. This is not because such developments have an inexorable inner logic, but because our society as present structured will continue to generate problems for some of its members...and then condemn whatever solution these groups find. [Cohen 1987:204]

Bibliography

Bradley, Ann (1994): A Morality Play for All Times [WWW document] URL http://www.informinc.co.uk?LM/LM63/LM63_Bulger.html
Calcutt, A (1997): Ecstasy and Apostasy [WWW document] URL http://www.informinc.co.uk/ LM/ LM98/LM98_Drugs.html
Campbell, Alec (1994): Violence, Lies and Videotape [WWW document] URL http://www.informinc.co.uk/LM/LM63/LM63_Bulger.html
Cohen, Stanley (1972): Folk Devils and Moral Panics London: MacGibbon and Kee
Eldridge, John (1997): The Mass Media and Power in Modern Britain Oxford: University Press
French, Karl (1997): Screen Violence London: Bloomsbury Publishing
Hall, Stuart (1978): Policing the Crisis: Mugging, State, Law and Order . London: MacMillan

Ten Key Points 

• It was first Stanley Cohen who first used there term "Moral Panics"
• The media over all exaggerate the events, most limey to sell more but this creates the moral panic.
• Society try to ring something to use as a scape goat for there mistakes.
• Moral panics existed before Media, they have just amplified the effect.
• It is highly likely that more "folk Devils will be created as a result of mediation.
• There is a form of hegemony with in the media and they have their own ideas of what right and whats wrong, meaning that anything outside of this they will attack as they feel its a a threat o their morals and values.
• The moral panics can greatly effect society as they could result in change in constitutions and laws.
• As Eldridge describes "The media, wittingly or unwittingly, reproduce the definitions of the powerful." as a lot of newspapers now are used to express the political views of parties, and a lot of the time its to difficult to see whats actually accurate as it can be a way for the elders to control our views.
• Usually Moral panics act on peoples fears for their safety, meaning people are more likely to agree to more CCTV being used, or even to Ban fils like Chucky III as they are the reason for the "Bulger murder"

Past Exam Questions

Here is a collection of past questions from the Collective Identity section of the exam paper. Hopefully, by looking at these you will be reassured that the exam does not hold any great terrors for you.

A good piece of advice to try to make the question more accessible is to replace the term 'group of people' with 'British Youth'. 

For example:

Analyse the ways in which at least one group of people is mediated'

becomes

Analyse the ways in which British Youth are mediated.