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