Critical Investigation proposal

Working title: 

Are contemporary documentaries, like C4's 'Benefits Street', providing a public service, or simply reinforcing negative stereotypes to generate a larger audience?

Angle/Hypothesis:
My view on the issue is that Channel 4 have purposely exposed a moral panic in society by portraying benefit claimants negatively and as conforming to common stereotypes in order to cause outage amongst viewers, and as a result gain views. The alternative view however is that Benefits street is an educational programme and does show Benefits claimants positively and not a completely negative light.


Linked production idea:

Possible short documentary following a group of students in school, claiming to give an insight into school and student life, however instead clearly highlights common stereotypes in school. E.g. Black students robbing others, Asians clever or can't speak english etc.

MIGRAIN:

Institution:

• Channel 4 - Not a tax funded institution such as the BBC, perhaps giving it more lee way to manipulate media and make it less factual as it is not as restricted and regulated as the BBC. 

Genre:

• Documentary
•  Reality TV
•  Poverty porn - media that gives people pleasure from looking down at other people's poverty

Representation:

Representation of benefit claimers positive or negative?

• Negative - Presented as lazy, uneducated scroungers who waste tax payers money to buy drugs and steal.
• Positive - Sense of sympathy gained from the viewer as they see the hardship of life on benefits

Audience:

• Dominant:
• Very large - 
• Tax payers (18-65)
• Working
• Succeeders/mainstreamers

This very large audience of tax payers will be interested in the show as they themselves are stakeholders as the people being documented in the show are using their money to live. Therefore tax payers will be interested to see how their money is being used.

• Alternative:
• On benefits
• Not working
• Strugglers

Strugglers and people on benefits will want to watch the show as they can identify with the characters and be able to see how they come across.

or

• Working
• Aged 40-65
• Reformers

Reformers will watch the show and look to outline issues in society and complain about the condition of the welfare state and benefits.

Ideology:

• Dominant - People on benefits are lazy and should not be taking tax payers money to live when they're too lazy to find work for themselves.

• Alternative - (socialist) We should support those who are unable to find work and not discriminate against them

Narrative:

• Multi strand
• Voice over
• Non diegetic music
• Follows typical conventions of a documentary, but it it informative/educational?

SHEP

Social - 

• May consider the massive uproar on social media
• Have channel 4 considered the social well being and effects the show may have on residents?
• Is the show an accurate representation of life on benefits?

The impact the show has had on society is a big reason it has become such a notorious, controversial and well known show in the UK. The show exploits a moral panic in society, the fact that people are angered and outraged whenever the topic of benefits comes up, which is why there have been so many shows made about people on benefits.

Historical - 

• May consider has benefits always been such a controversial issue throughout history?
• How has the welfare state and benefit state changed under recent governments
• Other documentaries about benefit claimants throughout history

As far as I'm aware, shows about benefit claimants such as benefits street and others have only become popular among institutions such as channel 4 after the recession in 2008. This is because suddenly, with wages going down and prices inflating, people became much more protective of their money and weary of their spending. Historically when major problems arise such as recessions, people tend to need a scape goat to blame. Benefits claimants have literally nothing to do with the cause of the recession, yet it only became an issue after the recession happened. It is something that can be seen throughout history, with the Nazi party gaining support after hyperinflation in Germany after the first world war, which can also be linked to the prominence of UKIP recently.

Economic - 

• May consider how much benefit claimants really take from tax
• How much does paying benefits impact the economy?
• Is the show a factual documentary or simply aggravating people to get views and money?

As far as I'm aware, shows about benefit claimants such as benefits street and others have only become popular among institutions such as channel 4 after the recession in 2008. This is because suddenly, with wages going down and prices inflating, people became much more protective of their money and weary of their spending. As a result during this period benefits started to become a major issue, because people began to question why their taxes were being used to fund people, they perceived to be, too lazy to find work.

Political - 

• May consider how and how much do political parties use benefits as a way to gain votes?
• How often is benefits an issue raised at parliament?
• What did David Cameron say about benefits street and what impacts did it have politically?
• How does benefits in the UK compare to that in other countries? Are we exaggerating?

Recently the welfare state and benefits policies of political parties has become a key and major part of their make up and essential to their campaigns. Previous to the recession however parties did have policies on benefits however it was a much smaller issue and not an essential part of a parties campaign. Now however parties' policies on benefits are as important as their policies on education and healthcare highlighting how much of an issue it has become. It can be argued that the moral panic surrounding benefits has led to the rise in votes for UKIP recently, due to their strict policy on benefits that are much less giving to benefit claimants than current policies such as:

• Non means-tested "basic cash benefit" for low earners and unemployed. Jobseekers allowance and incapacity benefit is scrapped.
•  Child benefit for the first three children only.
•  No benefits for anyone who has not lived in the UK for five years.

• A ban on tobacco and alcohol for those on benefits

Issues/Debates

• Representation and stereotyping - Are benefits claimants unfairly stereotyped and purposely represented negatively? It may be argued that benefit claimers in the show are represented as lazy, uneducated benefit scroungers who use tax paers money to steal and pay for drugs; with no interest in finding work. However it may also be argue that the audience are clearly able to see how hard life is for these people, living in small council houses while having to feed their children and pay bills on very low money and therefore gain a sense of sympathy and empathy for them instead.

• Moral Panics - Channel 4 have exploited a moral panic in society by making a documentary on benefits claimants, as benefits are a moral panic that causes people anger and resentment as they feel their money is being taken by lazy benefits claimants. Therefore knowing the show would be controversial and cause a public uproar, they also knew that as a result it would get views. Is it immoral or unethical to negatively represent a certain section of society simply to gain views?

• Reality TV - Despite being a documentary and marketed by channel 4 as a documentary the show also holds an aspect of reality TV in that it claims to follow and document the lives of real benefit claimers. However we must question how much "reality" does the show actually show? It can be argued channel 4 have purposely edited the programme in a way to make benefit claimers look far worse than they actually are in real life, for example showing scenes of drug use and sealing, as well as choosing to edit out a working family on the road.

• Media effects - As shown by the massive media outcry after the show was aired it is clear the show had a massive effect on viewers. The dominant effect on viewers was negative, reinforcing common stereotypes that benefit claimers are lazy and uneducated. 

Theories:

        Levi-Strauss: Binary opposition - between viewer and character on benefits as viewer feels anger and resentment towards claimants. 

Uses and Gratifications: Personal Identity - People on benefits may watch the show to gain a sense of personal identity and be able to identify with the characters in the show.

Dyer: Stereotypes - Have channel 4 dimply edited the show to stereotype benefit claimants as lazy, uneducated and criminals?

Cohen: Moral Panics - The issue of benefits is a moral panic in society and causes controversy, have channel 4 purposely picked this topic, knowing it will gain views?

Marxism? - The rich (channel 4) exposing the poor and manipulating the working classes through the show.

Hall - Dominant/Alternative reading 


Media texts:
Benefits street
Britain's Benefit tenants
Europe's immigration disaster
Why don't you speak english?
Sexbox
My Big Fat Gypsy Weddings



Internet Links


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2734500/Benefits-Street-2-begins-filming-deprived-crime-hit-area-Stockton-Tees-sparking-anger-MPs-locals.html - Useful article with quotes from a local resident from the road where channel 4 will be filming the second series of benefits street, claims that they 'They don't give a damn as long as it brings in the viewers. They don't care if anyone gets hurt.'. Also useful quotes from local MP.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/10/channel-4-stitch-up-benefits-street - Very useful quotes from a producer of the show from Channel 4 and a Labour MP who speaks about how the show is "poverty porn" and not a factual representation of people on benefits.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/all-about/benefits-street - http://www.mirror.co.uk/all-about/benefits-street - Many articles about benefits street regularly posted here.

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/11471252.Benefits_Street___39_a_myth__39__says_Teesside_academic/?ref=mr - Article where Professor Rob MacDonald of Teesside University states that the idea of whole streets of unemployed people is a "myth"

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths - Article useful for gaining facts about benefits and how much they take from taxes for use in investigation.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9116701/britains-dirty-secret/ - Interesting article where the author blames the massive tax rates for the people seen in benefits street - giving figures as to the small amount extra they would make in work and that society has a problem talking about benefits.

         http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a543116/benefits-street-essential-documentary-or-poverty-porn.html#~oTc9TmXB2CVMc3  - Very useful article with useful quotes where critics of the show question channel 4 and state the show is merely "poverty porn" and that Channel 4 have used the successful forumla from Big fat gypsie weddings, portraying and stereotyping people in a negative way, to gain views.

         http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01q1mqv - Benefits street podcast discussing whether it is poverty porn or an accurate representation.

         http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/12/benefits-street-poverty-porn-british-fury

Presentation feedback

Grade: A-

WWW:

• Already have a critical investigation question.
• Good references to figures and statistics to back up my argument.
• Good use of media terminology and theory.

EBI:

• Touched on programme makers, channel 4's, intentions for making the series.
• Showed both sides of the argument.
• Reference to poverty porn - media stimulating the viewer by showing people poorer than them.
• Possible link to Big fat Gypsy Wedding as a similar text.

Related Guardian articles

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/22/benefits-street-tv-programme-divided-the-nation

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/10/channel-4-stitch-up-benefits-street

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/08/benefits-street-petition-series-axed-channel-4

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/08/channel-4-betrayed-residents-benefits-street

critical invest ppt

summer project presentation research

Are modern documentaries on insitutions such as channel 4 really educating us or creating stereotypes and dumbing down britain?

Documentary: Using pictures or interviews with people involved in real events to provide a factual report on a particular subject:

Media Representations

Who is being represented? 

In what way?

Benefit claimers in Britain are presented extremely negatively as a whole by channel 4. The show includes a couple who openly admitted to benefit fraud as well as showing tenants stealing from shops to make money. As well as this the constant shots of benefit claimers simply sitting outside their houses presents them as lazy, and making it seem as if they are happy to simply take tax payers money. Overall this creates a very negative representation of benefit claimers to the viewer, causing anger and leading to stereotypes being enforced by the show.

Why is the subject being represented in this way? 

Presenting benefit claimants in this way is simply an easy way for channel 4 to gain views, and market themselves as making cutting edge documentaries, possibly trying to attract a new audience, when in fact they are simply exploiting a moral panic in society, as people become angered at the benefit claimers in the show. This is proven by the uproar the controversial show caused. This controversy and media attention the show received only led to more views as shown by:

Death threats to residesnts

David Cameron and Nick Clegg spoke about the show

Two live debates shows on channel 5 were aired: The Big Benefits Row: Live

 and Benefits Britain: The Debate

Thousands of complaints to Ofcom

Episode no.	Date	Total viewers (including +1) (in millions)	Share	Channel 4 weekly ranking
1	6 January 2014	5.42	14.4%	1
2	13 January 2014	6.45	17.5%	1
3	20 January 2014	6.48	18.4%	1
4	27 January 2014	5.87	16.9%	1
5	10 February 2014	4.50	16.0%	1

Is the representation fair and accurate?

The representation of benefit claimants in show is massively false and misleading in my opinion, simply so that channel 4 can cause an uproar, which they succeeded in doing, and to get more views. 

One of the smallest percentages of tax payers money is used on unemployment benefits, the highest percentage is on pensions.

Unemployment benefit claimers only receive £57.35 a week and £20.50 in child benefits with one child, but only £13.55 per child if you have more than one.

Clearly this amount of money is barely enough to live off, and therefore the stereotype created not only by Benefits street but by the media in general that the unemployed live luxury lives off tax payers money is massively false and therefore the animosity and stereotypes caused by representations of the people in benefit street is completely unfair.

Media Languages and Forms 

What are the denotative and connotative levels of meaning?

Denotation: People on benefits

Connotation: Lazy people living off tax payers money.

What is the significance of the text’s connotations?

It creates anger amongst the viewers which is why the shows has been so controversial and gained so much public interest.

What is the significance of mise-en-scene/sets/settings (CLAMPS)?

The setting of James Turner street is an essential part of the show, it is the road in which all of the benefit claimers live. The run down nature of the road gives us a clear insight that the residents don't live in luxury off tax payers money like many people think, and the houses provided are clearly small and also run down, however this does bit take away from the overall negative representation of the claimants. Some of the residents clothes however were expensive and designer, and some scenes showed residents boasting about their designer clothes. This costume is again very likely to anger the viewers who will think that a benefit claimer should not be wearing such luxury clothing.

What work is being done by the sound track/commentary/language of the text?

Throughout the show the main background non diegetic music is very upbeat and almost comical. This accentuates the idea that residents on benefits are happy and therefore not looking for work, which will again anger the tax paying viewers.

What sound and visual techniques are used to convey meaning (e.g. camera positioning, editing; the ways that images and sounds are combined to convey meaning)?

One controversial piece of editing done by the producers of the show was to edit out all footage of a working family on James Turner Street, which later gained media attention. Again this piece of editing gives the viewer the idea that every resident on the street claimed benefits, which gives the viewer the overall impression to the viewer that Britain as a whole has more benefit claimants than it actually does, causing more anger, more media attention and more views.

Narrative 

How is the narrative organised and structured?

A multi strand narrative following various characters throughout the series.

Genre 

To which genre does the text belong?

Documentary

What are the major generic conventions within the text?

Multi strand narratives

Voice over/Narrator

Use of background/non diegetic music

Informative/Educational

What are the major iconographic features of the text?

The James Turner street sign is a big icon that is constantly shown throughout the show and almost acts as a symbol of benefits, as the road is now immediately associated with benefit claimants.

To what extent are the audience’s generic expectations of the text fulfilled or cheated by the text? Does the text conform to the characteristics of the genre, or does it treat them playfully or ironically?

Overall the viewers expectations of the documentary are met. The overall topic of benefit claimants immediately creates a negative connotation and stereotype in the viewers mind before they have even watched the show, and the show only enforces this negative perception of people on benefits. It also follows the typical conventions of a documentary in that it uses narration, background music and a multi strand narrative.

However one clear way in which it clearly does not conform to the typical expectation of a documentary is that, in my opinion, it is not educational at all. As stated previously the show has no motive to educate viewers, but to instead rile them and create controversy to gain views. No statistics about benefit claimants are mentioned at any point during the show and fails massively in attempting to change perceptions and stereotypes of benefit claimants.

Media Institutions 

What is the institutional source of the text?

Channel 4

In what ways has the text been influenced or shaped by the institution which produced it?

The show is much more for entertainment purposes than educational, like a documentary on channels such as BBC Four or BBC Two would be as channel 4 is not an institution known for factual and educational programmes but instead controversial and entertaining shows.

Who owns and controls the institution concerned and does this matter?

The fact that the channel is not under the regulations of institutions such as publically funded BBC means that the producers have a much greater licence to manipulate the documentary and make it less factual and more entertaining, simply for views.

Media Values and Ideology 

What are the major values, ideologies and assumptions underpinning the text or naturalised within it?

The ideology that everyone should work is clearly brought out in viewers of the shows as shown by the outrage the show has caused and the general stereotypes of benefit claimers.

What criteria have been used for selecting the content presented?

Channel 4 has cleverly selected footage likely to cause anger, such as scenes of benefit claimers gloating about their expensive designer clothing and stealing from shops, as this gains views, as opposed to less popular factual information and statistics on benefit claimers.

Media Audiences 

To whom is the text addressed? What is the target audience? (Demographics, Psychographics)

The main target audience of the show is working class people, both male and female as well as rich people aged around 18-60. Demographics C-A and Psycographics: Mainstreamers and Succeeders. This is because these people are employed and are paying taxes which are used for unemployed benefit claimants, and will therefore be interested in where the money is going and how the lives of those getting tax payers money are. However lower classes of Demographic E-D and Psychographic Strugglers who themselves may be on benefits may also be likely to watch the show due to a sense of identification in which they can relate to the situations faced by those in the show. Therefore the shows has an extremely large audience.

What assumptions about the audience are implicit in the text’s scheduling or positioning?

The usual air time of 9pm clearly shows that the programme is targeted at an older, specifically working age audience.

Theories:

Levi-Strauss: Binary opposition - between viewer and character on benefits.

Uses and Gratifications: Personal Identity

Dyer: Stereotypes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefits_Street

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths

https://www.gov.uk/child-benefit-rates

http://www.mirror.co.uk/all-about/benefits-street

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/22/benefits-street-tv-programme-divided-the-nation