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
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
This is so amazing. A constructive piece of criticism would be to improve the spelling, because you seem like you've never been to school before. Also, you need to stop copying my work. Thank you in advance.
ReplyDelete