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.

Stanly Cohan "Folk devils and Moral Panics"

Audience Theory

The problem with Stanley Cohen's assertions about the exaggerated and negative effect of media coverage of the fighting on the south coast of England in 1964 is that it presumes that all members of the newspapers 'audience' reacted to the coverage in the same way.

In order to understand why this was, perhaps, a false viewpoint you need to know a little more about the basics of Audience Theory.

Here is a brief explanation of the 4 main audience theories you need to be aware of.

Learn these and consider their implication on how collective identity is constructed.

1. The Hypodermic Needle Model

Dating from the 1920s, this theory was the first attempt to explain how mass audiences might react to mass media. It is a crude model (see picture!) and suggests that audiences passively receive the information transmitted via a media text, without any attempt on their part to process or challenge the data. Don't forget that this theory was developed in an age when the mass media were still fairly new - radio and cinema were less than two decades old. Governments had just discovered the power of advertising to communicate a message, and produced propaganda to try and sway populaces to their way of thinking. This was particularly rampant in Europe during the First World War (look at some posters here) and its aftermath.

Basically, the Hypodermic Needle Model suggests that the information from a text passes into the mass consciouness of the audience unmediated, ie the experience, intelligence and opinion of an individual are not relevant to the reception of the text. 

This theory suggests that, as an audience, we are manipulated by the creators of media texts, and that our behaviour and thinking might be easily changed by media-makers. It assumes that the audience are passive and heterogenous. This theory is still quoted duringmoral panics by parents, politicians and pressure groups, and is used to explain why certain groups in society should not be exposed to certain media texts (comics in the 1950s, rap music in the 2000s), for fear that they will watch or read sexual or violent behaviour and will then act them out themselves.

2. Two-Step Flow

The Hypodermic model quickly proved too clumsy for media researchers seeking to more precisely explain the relationship between audience and text. As the mass media became an essential part of life in societies around the world and did NOT reduce populations to a mass of unthinking drones, a more sophisticated explanation was sought.

Paul Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet analysed the voters' decision-making processes during a 1940 presidential election campaign and published their results in a paper called The People's Choice. Their findings suggested that the information does not flow directly from the text into the minds of its audience unmediated but is filtered through "opinion leaders" who then communicate it to their less active associates, over whom they have influence. The audience then mediate the information received directly from the media with the ideas and thoughts expressed by the opinion leaders, thus being influenced not by a direct process, but by a two step flow. This diminished the power of the media in the eyes of researchers, and caused them to conclude that social factors were also important in the way in which audiences interpreted texts. This is sometimes referred to as the limited effects paradigm.

• The Two Step Flow Of Communication Theory - A short paper by Sarah Griswold
• Two Step Flow Theory—Clear summary of Katz & Lazarsfield, with diagrams
• Katz & Lazarsfeld: Two Step Flow - Mick Underwood

3. Uses & Gratifications

During the 1960s, as the first generation to grow up with television became grown ups, it became increasingly apparent to media theorists that audiences made choices about what they did when consuming texts. Far from being a passive mass, audiences were made up of individuals who actively consumed texts for different reasons and in different ways. In 1948 Lasswell suggested that media texts had the following functions for individuals and society:

• surveillance
• correlation
• entertainment
• cultural transmission

Researchers Blulmer and Katz expanded this theory and published their own in 1974, stating that individuals might choose and use a text for the following purposes (ie uses and gratifications):

• Diversion - escape from everyday problems and routine.
• Personal Relationships - using the media for emotional and other interaction, eg) substituting soap operas for family life
• Personal Identity - finding yourself reflected in texts, learning behaviour and values from texts
• Surveillance - Information which could be useful for living eg) weather reports, financial news, holiday bargains

Since then, the list of Uses and Gratifications has been extended, particularly as new media forms have come along (eg video games, the internet)

• Why Do People Watch Television? - an exploration of Uses & Gratifications by Daniel Chandler
• Uses & Gratifications/Dependency Theory - E Rossi

4. Reception Theory

Extending the concept of an active audience still further, in the 1980s and 1990s a lot of work was done on the way individuals received and interpreted a text, and how their individual circumstances (gender, class, age, ethnicity) affected their reading.

This work was based on Stuart Hall's encoding/decoding model of the relationship between text and audience - the text is encoded by the producer, and decoded by the reader, and there may be major differences between two different readings of the same code. However, by using recognised codes and conventions, and by drawing upon audience expectations relating to aspects such as genre and use of stars, the producers can position the audience and thus create a certain amount of agreement on what the code means. This is known as a preferred reading.

• Reception Theory
• Audience Research: Reception Theory — Museum of Broadcast Communications
• Reception Studies and Classical Film Theory

Both of the articles from the magazines, very much challenge the tabloid newspapers and the local newspapers which where released after the Brighton events. The first article titled "Brighton 1964, i was there..." is an interview given to a mod who was actually their.

below the title there is an image of the very popular image of the deck chairs being thrown of the roof and at people. Underneath this it says that this image was later claimed to be staged. This clearly shows that they have a negative approach to what happened that day, and they are showing people that the press where not just exaggerating what was happening they where also, creating their own false evidence. To the left of that, there is an image of the same beach which these fights took place. In this image the mods are very calm and relaxed just sitting on the beach, this is a very different portrayal of the event compared to the ones of the newspapers, this means there is likely to be two different stories to the events which took place that day. Over all the magazine shows a very contrasting story.

in the article the interviewee then admits to there begin some clashes and some damages, but not to the full extent which the newspapers claimed, as he says "There really wasn't much in the way of any major damage though, defiantly nothing on the scale that was reported in the newspapers". this entire article essentially says that the newspapers exaggerated what took place, and this is coming from somebody who was actually there.

On the other hand this source can be quite bias and unreliable. This is because the person being interview is a Mod, this means that he would have the opposite view point compared to the newspapers as he was one of the people being targeted. Straight away we get the feeling that he might be just trying to decent, his mod culture. The second reason way this could be unreliable is because, this interview was done in 2014, therefor one of the memories could be slightly blurred and inaccurate due to how long ago it happened, on the other hand this could be him looking back as an adult, with a different head on his shoulders meaning he would have a slightly more mature understanding of the events, which shows that I was grossly exaggerated.

The fact that this article was published in a scootering magazine which promotes the mod culture, this would have a large impact on the way which they represent the events which took place, and its expected that they would largely disagree with what the newspapers would showed, therefor there is a question if this magazine is telling the truth or is just trying to promote and defend the mod culture.

A send article published by the same magazine also reflects what was said in the fist interview. this interview can be bias and unreliable for the same reasons as its published by the magazine who is trying to promote mod culture. the article is Titled "Mythbusters" this is the first clue that the article is against what was reported in the 60's. By using this title the are telling use that the events which took place where actually a myth meaning that it might not have actually happened like that.

the sources which this article use are slightly more reliable than the previous, as its the "editor of the daily mirror" talking about the events and he admits the the events which took place where "a little over reported" this tells us that he knows that the media was giving to much attention on these events, making them bigger than they where, and in an age where most people would receive their information from newspapers, they would have been constantly been bombarded with this event from all directions, so eventually they would then start to believe it, because of the amount of coverage it got. So it might not just be what the newspapers said, it is also the over coverage it got. The article then diverts the blame for the events, as it says "those not arriving at the seaside resorts on two wheels who were most responsible" so essentially this is saying that they used the mods almost as a scapegoat. Which then created the deviance amplification spiral, which was target at the mods. Also the fact that it was a hegemonist view of the media controlled by middle aged men, would explain why they saw what the mods where doing as being deviant, as they where not following the behaviour expected, so to them they would be fearful as its something they didn't understand 

Mod sub-culture

What is a mod?

Mods is a term used to describe "modernist" which derived from the young subculture youths from London who listened to modern jazz, and where very stylish, so they where they refereed to as modernists. This eventually sprung out to create a much larger subculture, which adopted this name as the Mods.

What is the historical context of the mod?

The mods, started in London in the late 50s to early 60s. They started out as a small group mainly made from males, with a small number of females. these mods where strongly influenced by the french and italian styles of suits and clothing, and would spend the majority of their time buying, and talking about clothing. the mods where tired of baggy clothing, scruffy beards and trad jazz, so they rebelled against this and opted for more modern styles in both clothing and music. the mods essentially reached out to outer countries to get inspiration from the european styles of dressing and french hair cuts to the heavy musical interests in Motown jazz and blues music.

A lot of their time they strived to be approved to be modern.

The mods only really emerged in to the public eye in 1964, when they started to clash with the rival youth subculture of the rockers. Which started in clacton and spread to Brighton and hastings. These clashes where very sensationalised by the media, and they became what we know today as the Mods.

What are the "fashions, mannerisms and music" that "signal...membership" of this youth sub-culture?

The majority of the time the mods would wear, tailor made suits inspired by the slimmer, slicker and more stylish continental suits associated with countries like France or Italy. this was breaking the common suit designs which where there after the war with baggy jackets and large neck ties and turn up trousers. the suits where also made from slicker materials and had more adventurous colours and patterns. even the girls where wearing slicker slimmer less baggy dress a lot of them made out of the same materials as the mens suits.

Newspaper Coverage of mod and rockers "Clashes"

One weekend in 1964 residents and holiday-makers in the seaside towns of Brighton, Bournemouth and Margate, were rocked by a sudden influx of young, cool gangs. They were Mods and Rockers, and the culture clash that occurred that weekend, described in the articles below in The Daily Sketch, Daily Mirror and others, has become iconic in the history of youth culture. 

Mods and Rockers were easily identifiable by their distinctive clothing styles: the Mods wore Fred Perry and Ben Sherman designer suits, covered by a Parka jacket; while the Rockers wore leather biker jackets and jeans. Mods also rode European scooters like Lambrettas and Vespas and listened to a mix of Motown, ska and bands such as The Who. 

The Rockers favoured motorbikes and listened to American rock and roll such as Eddie Cochrane and Elvis. Although the movements were short-lived, violent clashes between the two gangs were seized on by the media and used by moralists to exemplify the outrageous liberties enjoyed by Britain’s youths. 

The seafront vandalism and violence described in the newspaper article was later made into the 1979 film Quadrophenia.

The video below shows how the media in the 1960s reported the clashes between mods and rockers and considers whether or not the media coverage exaggerated the scale of events leading to a 'moral panic' in relation to the behaviour of these youth subcultures.

Question

In what ways do the media texts referenced above create a representation of young people as being a danger to society?

The way the newspapers described the clashes between the mods and rockers in the 60's was very unified in a very much negative manor, for the the two subcultures. Although the two groups where very different they both took the full brunt of the mediated and sensationalised representation of the events. This demographic of "teens" was under attack from the newspapers but was it really as bad as they said?

One extract from the daily sketch described the events in it title. "Beach crowds take cover from battling mods and rockers" this first section talks about the events as if they where a form of war as it describes the clashes as a battle, with in mode this is only 20 years since world war two, this creates a sense of fear and un easy fro the older generations which experience a real war, making this head line more hard hitting. The line starts of with saying the "crowds take cover", this tells use that the people who where on their holiday, where suddenly disturbed and had to take cover as they where in dander, this gives the impression that these two groups are in fact a danger to the public, and when people do confront they should run away and "take cover". This closely references the messages given to people during the war because of the war, so there a constant reminder of what terror these groups could cause.

further on in the article we then see a small anecdote, of a 50 year old "Heroine" called Ellen Green who managed to, fight away 200 teenagers. This might have been used to show that these teens are also attacking the elderly but it actually contradicts the whole article, because if the 50 year old women was able to fight them of with a mop they could not have been violent or as menacing as they are described all "200" of them. 

This is a large clue, to show that these events where sensationalised by the media, and this representation of the teens given by the Daily sketch highly effected the rest of the british teen demographic, as any teen wearing a leather jacket or wearing a suit, would instantly be prejudged, to be a danger to society.

some of the images used in the extracts are very specific and they all shown a negative image of the mods and rockers violently attacking each other or being arrested. all these images would have been carefully selected and would have been targeted shots. One particular image which is very popular is the first one. This image shows a mod throwing a deck chair at a rocker. this image is very powerful as it shows the full brunt of violence which happened, the chairs being thrown could potentially seriously insure the rocker, further more the rocker hanging of a ledge, this shows that the mod is showing no remorse, and if he could do something so violent to somebody who is running away and hanging of a ledge, he must be a clear threat to the public, and all the mods would have been branded with this act.