Sunday, 12 April 2015

Critican investigation draft 3

“This programme ... makes people out as complete scum” Dee Roberts – James Turner Street resident[1]

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

The dominant view of the text being investigated, Channel 4's Benefits Street, is a largely negative one. Channel 4's marketing of the programme claims that it 'reveals the reality of life on benefits'[2], when in reality what Channel 4 have achieved is the opposite. Instead of offering an insight into the hardship of life on minimal income and substandard housing, they have created a vicious depiction of the lower classes in society, presenting them terribly with stereotypes in order to outrage the rest of society, and there is no doubt that they succeeded.

The evidence of this is clear; there was a public outcry every time the show aired. The documentary was number one on Channel 4's viewing figures[3] and trended on twitter after every showing. As well as this Ofcom received 1,800[4] complaints and became 'Channel 4's most popular programme since the Paralympics in 2012, attracting audiences of over 5 million'[5].

But why has the show caused such controversy? The negative stereotypes presented in the show are consumed by the audience, and that stereotype is then seen as the correct connotation of everyone in that group. In this case, benefit claimants are recognised as lazy scroungers who make no attempt to find work, and eventually all claimants are put under this bracket.

This is evident in the main promotional trailer for the series, named 'Welcome to James Turner Street'[6] has been analysed. The first shot of the trailer depicts a woman labelling every house on the street that is claiming benefits and are unemployed. The repetition of the word 'unemployed' as she points at the houses accentuates the idea and subject matter of the programme. However, more significantly the repetition sticks in the mind of the viewer, and emphasises the common misconception that more people are on benefits than there actually are, which is a current moral panic[7] in society which the trailer has validated .

The upbeat, almost comical non-diegetic music in the background is also significant. Perhaps Channel 4's intended reading was to create a jollier atmosphere, portraying a sense of togetherness in the community. However, the music invokes the audience further, with the dominant reading that the comical music is almost mocking the viewer, as the benefit claimants on screen take their money. It can also be argued the upbeat tone is perhaps to mock the characters further, following the Marxist reading that the show was made to mock the lower class. Helen Wood and Beverly Skeggs in Reacting to Reality Television: Performance, Audience and Values claim that 'ironic music and juxtapositional editing'[8] has a 'manipulation of affect' on the audience, evidenced by this sequence as the music manipulates the audience into thinking the benefit claimers see taking tax payers' money as a joke, and claiming benefits is not a serious issue.

The shots of ethnic minorities, especially the shot of a character not speaking English, as well as the narrator stating that there is "13 different nationalities"[9] on the road acts upon another moral panic in society. Immigration is another moral panic the trailer reinforces, with the shot of a character not speaking English, and the reference to 13 nationalities is likely to anger people, such as those of a reformer psychographic, by portraying the stereotype that immigrants can't speak English and come to England simply to live of benefits. This, however, is proven to be untrue by the fact that immigrants 'added £4.96bn more in taxes in the years to 2011 than they took out in public services'[10].


The close up of the black male speaking of the change in the street's fortunes is also significant. The male is wearing a white hat which says 'Thailand'. This subtle piece of costume is highly significant as it suggests the man has been on holiday to Thailand which is likely to anger the audience, outraged that someone on benefits is going on luxurious holidays using tax payer’s money. The colour white may also have been a significant use of colour by the director as it sticks out against the man's skin, bringing attention to it, and making it stick out to the audience.

From this trailer alone it is absolutely clear that there is an element of Channel 4 demonising benefit claimants, representing them as lazy and content to be taking tax payers money. Channel 4 are 'projecting the extreme cases [that] people then extrapolate [and] say that applies to everybody who is on benefits'[11]. It is these extreme cases that aggravate people and eventually completely villainise an entire class of people. Channel 4's motive for doing this is the massive out cry on social networks and newspapers afterwards, which give the show more and more publicity, for example the show ignited a series of headlines such as this one ' Unemployed woman, 21, who has never had a job and weighs 32 stone because she 'eats when she's bored' lives on £18,000 benefits a year instead - more than a nurse's salary'[12] fuelling the demonisation of those on benefits. Alex Cunningham, Labour MP for Stockton North, where the second series of the documentary will be filmed stated "There is no doubt this is about exploiting vulnerable people in order to make money"[13], whilst a person living in the area also stated Channel 4 "don't give a damn as long as it brings in the viewers"[14].

Away from this, the name Benefits Street itself is a 'title cynically chosen to push buttons, and that ploy has worked'[15] according to The Guardian's Charlie Brooker. The title Benefits Street immediately creates negative connotations of people on benefits and by adding 'street' the idea of a large number of people all claiming benefits is established which will anger the tax paying viewers. Surely if Channel 4 were aiming to give a real insight into life on benefits they would not have chosen such a cynical title.   

Channel 4 have arguably depicted benefit claimants in this way simply to gain views, and the only way to gain an audience into reality documentaries such as this is to do the complete opposite; create a false reality in which characters stereotype themselves, acting in a manner which will anger the liberal middle classes and cause them to publicise it on social media.

The works of Stanley Cohen and Stuart Hall together provide evidence as to why Channel 4 have succeeded in having this effect on the audience and the impact stereotypes can have on them. Cohen describes a moral panic as a 'condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests'[16]. Channel 4 has most notably exploited the moral panic of benefits as well as immigration in the programme. Creating an entire series about a moral panic in society was bound to gain people's attention and cause controversy as the panic is due to people becoming worried about how their taxes are used in the current economic climate, with the panic being that they are used on benefit scroungers. Benefits Street does exploit and reinforce this moral panic, creating a bigger panic and villainising benefit claimants even further in society.

Linking to this is Richard Dyer's research on stereotypes; he highlights the underlying power held by a stereotype. Dyer states that a stereotype “is not merely a short-cut…it is something more. It is the projection upon the world our own sense of value,”[17]. Similarly he also cites that “Stereotypes are highly charged with the feelings that are attached to them."[18]. Dyer is suggesting that stereotypes hold extreme significance and power in society, stereotypes create feelings with them and as a result cause the audience to perceive a group in a certain way, in this case benefit claimers. Channel 4 have arguably exploited the use of moral panics and stereotypes in order to create as much outrage as possible to gain views, but as Dyer states there is a far more significant impact on society.

ZEITGEIST This negative interpretation follows a Marxist view on the media. The Marxist view of the show is that the bourgeois are creating content such as Benefits Street to keep people deflecting their anger away from the government and ruling classes, who are responsible for the state of those on benefits, and instead keep the anger on the lower class, to solidify their position at the head of society. This also follows Gramsci's theory of hegemony in which the elite, in this case Channel 4, are using the media to control the audience, which they have arguably succeeded in doing due to the massive hatred towards benefit claimers in society currently.

This Marxist perspective can be linked to the evolution of documentary, which has become steadily less factual in years gone by, instead becoming incorporated with reality TV, which Benefits Street proves. In Reality Television and Class by Beverly Skeggs and Helen Wood, reality TV is described as the "trashiest form of television" and therefore content is being constantly 'dumbed down' to keep people in a position where the intellectuals in charge can not be challenged. In their second book, Reacting to Reality Television: Performance, Audience and Value, they state that reality TV works to 'devalue working class culture and taste and instate the middle class as the ‘particular universal class’[19], and in order to succeed in this they must demonise the working and lower classes. In the book Wood and Skeggs continue to explore the rise of 'poor relief where redemptive narratives become a measure of a respectable and ‘worthy’ citizen, marking the distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor'[20] in reality television, which is clearly seen in Benefits Street as the whole programme can be interpreted as deciding if the claimers on screen deserve the viewers' tax.
Similarly, Professor Rob MacDonald of Teesside University states in his research paper Benefits Street and the Myth of Workless Communities. that “The idea of 'benefit ghettos' where unemployment is a 'lifestyle choice' is a powerful one that helps justify the Government's cuts to welfare budgets"[21] emphasising the misconception spread through the media to demonise the lower that there are far more people unemployed than there really is. Linking to this is Stuart Hall's belief that “The mass media play a crucial role in defining the problems and issues of public concern. They are the main channels of public discourse in our segregated society"[22], accentuating the hegemonic idea that the media have spread these negative stereotypes of the lower classes and created a segregated society in order to deflect anger away from themselves and instead keep their position at the top, further highlighted by Owen Jones who stated that "The media relays the voice of the privileged".[23]

However we must also explore the alternative reading and Channel 4's preferred reading of the documentary. There is no doubt that throughout the series viewers are exposed to some gruesome conditions that benefit claimers must endure. The poor state of housing is obvious to the viewer, with very small space provided for large families. In addition, viewing characters battles addiction and struggle to pay their bills are scenes that do draw sympathy from the viewer and give an insight into some of the hardship benefit claimers face. One especially heartfelt moment from the show in which viewers got to see the degree of poverty endured were the scenes of a large number of Romanian immigrants cramped into a small shed in someone's house as they were unable to secure council housing. Similarly, loveable characters such as Fungi, who despite blatantly committing crimes in the programme forms a bond with the audience; and these aspects of the documentary cannot be ignored simply because of of negative press, linking to Channel 4's head of factual commissioning's comment "I don't think you should judge the programme by the extreme reaction represented by a handful of very intemperate tweets."[24]

Analysing another trailer for the Benefits Street series, a sequence can be seen in which a group of immigrants are portrayed positively. The trailer named 'No Handouts'[25] shows an ethnic minority family working to gain money by taking other people's scrap metal to avoid claiming benefits. This therefore discredits the stereotype shown in the main trailer that immigrants simply come to the country to scrounge on benefits, creating a positive representation of minorities.

Proving that there was a positive reaction amongst some viewers is The Guardian's Charlie Brooker who claimed that he 'didn't hate anyone in it. [He] liked them. A lot of what they had to put up with looked absolutely awful' and stated how 'anyone could come away feeling anything other than affection for most of the people involved is beyond [him]'[26]. Therefore, Channel 4 arguably did succeed in exposing the grim reality of life on benefits to some of the audience and therefore the documentary can claim to have be a success.

The Telegraph's Fraser Nelson in his article 'Benefits Street: the real scandal'[27] similarly follows a view of sympathy for the shows characters and believes it was a success in exposing life on benefits. He however believes that the public outcry against benefit claimants is misplaced and the anger should be directed towards the government for the situation these people are in. He states that the show 'opens a window on part of our welfare state' that 'we pretend doesn't exist' and claims that 'if what we see is shocking, then the question is shouldn't we be changing the system?’. This is clearly another example of Benefits Street and Channel 4 succeeding in highlighting flaws in the welfare system and perhaps Nelson is right, public anger should be vented towards the government for creating the conditions for those we see villainised in the show.
Following this, a pluralistic view of the show can be formed. The pluralist view on the documentary and the integration of reality TV previously discussed can be seen as an evolution of documentary genre with the evolution of modern television viewing. Helen Wood and Beverly Skeggs state their research in the book Reality Television and Class, claiming that "When finally given the choice, viewers turned away from state television's serious news shows, political discussions, talking heads, art films and other 'quality' programmes in favour of talk shows, competitive reality programmes and locally produced soap operas"[28]. This proves that modern audience’s preferences have changed and reality television is now the dominant genre, evidenced by the popularity of shows such as Geordie Shore, The Only Way is Essex and Made in Chelsea. Therefore the modern integration of reality TV with documentary may not be an attempt to 'dumb down' the proletariat, but instead is simply documentary complying with what is currently popular. Benefits Street cannot be accused of creating poor quality programming when it brings in record audiences.

Another point made by Wood and Skeggs in the book is that it is the 'dissident intellectuals' make up the majority that oppose reality TV because reality television is causing the elite to be 'in danger of losing national leadership roles' due to the fact that they are becoming out of touch with modern culture and may be losing its power to the 'post socialist 'cultural bourgeois''[29], therefore the Marxist idea of shows like Benefits Street are being used to manipulate the lower class is false.

In The Ethics of Reality TV by Wendy N. Wyatt and Kristie Bunton stereotypes are discussed as positive in some aspects, following Tessa Perkins' theory of positive stereotypes. The book cites Media activist Jennifer Pozner who suggests that 'stereotypes are 'endemic, even necessary' to some reality shows"[30] to create an accurate representation of reality, as there are many stereotypes that are accurate reflections of society. This is further emphasised by Richard Dyer's The Role of Stereotypes in which he states that the 'use of stereotypes, has to be acknowledged as a necessary, indeed inescapable, part of the way societies make sense of themselves[31]' suggesting that society requires stereotypes to function and is necessary to make sense of our position in it, meaning those seen in Benefits Street  are not harmful, but accurate and necessary portrayals of the lower class.

However, this view on Benefits Street is largely false. The vast majority of people have followed the interpretation that Benefit claimers are lazy scroungers because of Channel 4's editing and desire to portray them that way. To claim that the documentary succeeds in exposing the real hardship of life on benefits due to a few empathetic scenes out of an entire series would be fictitious. The quote from MP Dame Anne Begg is clear evidence of this as she stated that despite claiming to reveal the truth about life on benefits, one of the main storylines was 'about a petty criminal and shoplifter and how he lived on the proceeds of his crime, rather than the reality of what people face when they live on benefits'. On the whole, the series spews out stereotypes constantly, looking to provoke the tax paying audience and cause a media outcry which will gain the show more views.

Taking into consideration the historical and economic context of the documentary we can see that benefits in general has only recently become a big issue. The catalyst for the moral panic regarding benefits was the 2008 recession which significantly affected the economy globally as well as in the UK. The recession caused significant impacts on the government with unemployment rising by 2.6 million in the UK[32] and taxes being raised. This, as well as lower wages and an inflation of prices meant people have become far more wary of their money and how taxes are being used by the government.  - ZEITGEIST

It is the result of this sudden crisis caused by the recession that people begin to vilify certain individuals in order to have someone to vent their anger towards, as Charlie Brooker states ' "British society seems to require a regularly-updated register of sanctioned hate figures'. Historically when the economic and social climate of an area becomes significantly lowered and people feel as if they are in a helpless position there is a growth in right wing and even extremist political parties. The most prominent uprising of a right wing party as a result of the 2008 recession is UKIP, a right wing political party who are anti immigration and benefits, views supported after the recession as people believe there money is being wasted by benefit claimers and immigrants. John William Gardner describes the rise of political extremism as involving 'two prime ingredients: an excessively simple diagnosis of the world's ills, and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all', In this case, it is benefit claimers who are identified as the easy target for people to vent their anger as a result of negative portrayals by media outlets such as Channel 4, leading to a growth in extremist views.

Historically there are numerous occurrences that act as evidence for this. One notable example is the situation in Germany after the First World War, in which Germany went through economic disaster with hyperinflation and poverty spreading rapidly across the country. During this time the extremist, right wing Nazi Party came to the fore, being seen as the extreme leadership necessary to fix the socio economic problems in the country. The Marxist beliefs of the Frankfurt school believe that elites such as the Nazi's during their reign, use the media to control the audience, who were merely 'passive vessels'[33].To a lesser extent, the rise of UKIP is comparable to that of the Nazi party's, therefore proving the historical pattern of right wing politics flourishing in times of socio economic crisis.

Looking further at historical examples to compare with Benefits Street, Ken Loach's fly on the wall series 'The Family'[34] is a similar type social documentary from 1974 following the life of an average working class family in Britain during the 70’s. The first comparisons to Benefits Street that can be made are the similarities between the two programmes. Like Benefits Street, The Family uses the typical documentary conventions of a narrator, as well as keeping a multi-stranded narrative, following different members of the family.

However, where the two social documentaries differentiate is in their portrayal of the lower class. Unlike Benefits Street, which is purposely edited to make the lower class look as infuriating as possible, The Family has very little editing at all. A majority of the show is simply raw footage with only a fade to black between each scene providing the viewer with a real insight into what working class life is actually like, unlike the false reality painted in the heavily edited Benefits Street. One example is the scene at 34 minutes where an unemployed housewife speaks about being on the council housing waiting list for 16 years which provokes no sense indignation from the viewer, unlike when watching Benefits Street. This may be down to the lack of ironic upbeat diegetic music heard in the background of Benefits Street which provokes the idea that the whole show is a joke.

In addition, this reflects the societal differences at the time The Family was shot, during the 70’s it was perfectly normal for a woman to be a housewife and look after her family at home with no resentment from others. However, in today’s society anyone that chooses not to work and to live at home is highly frowned upon, and this suggests that it is society’s change in views that have dictated the negative response to Benefits Street.

However, on the economic front that Benefit Street claims to give an accurate representation of, current statistics regarding the welfare state and tax usage prove the farcical depiction of benefit claimants. As of 2012, over 74%[35] of taxes used by the welfare state is paid to pensions from tax-payers' money, almost 24% of the total government public spending, with housing benefits 16%, and unemployment benefits only making up 3.58% of the total amount spent on pensions and welfare, yet pensioners are not demonised by society, because institutions like Channel 4 have not made them a target for animosity.

This highlights the illusion created by the media and Channel 4, constantly creating stereotypical exploitations of the lower classes, also known as 'poverty porn' and marketing them as documentaries to gain views. The most recent example is Skint[36], a series started in December 2014 following a group on benefits resorting to crime to gain any sort of income, making no effort to find a job throughout. It is a common theme for Channel 4, Alex Fletcher, editor of the Digital Spy stated 'Skint was basically Benefits Street under a different name and the ratings-grabbing Big Fat Gypsy Wedding franchise feels like it is now the blueprint for all C4 docs - laughing and pointing at the vulnerable, under the guise of a serious social and cultural study'.[37] Owen Jones labelled Channel 4's antagonists in recent documentaries such as 'On Benefits and Proud' as focusing on "extreme caricatures"[38] in society, choosing to publicise the most extravagant, provoking character they can find so they can create a 'documentary' that represents a whole group of people. Channel 4's 'Why don't you speak English?' is yet another example of the exploitation and publicising of incredibly minute parts of the population, as the documentary interviews a set of non English speaking immigrants in England, when in fact only 0.275%[39] of the UK can not speak English. However the programme creates the impression that England is full of non English speaking immigrants who come to take jobs.

To conclude, it is clear with this evidence that Channel 4 is not providing a Public Service or educating people with their documentaries. Channel 4’s remit states that they must aim to produce programming of an 'educational nature' and 'educative value'[40]. Benefits Street is supposedly one of these educational programmes, when in reality all the programme does is reinforce common stereotypes and exploit moral panics in society in order to gain views.


3601 words


Work Cited:

Academic books/journals:

Anderson, E. (2008). Against the wall: Poor, young, Black, and male (p. 166). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Cohen, Stanley. Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1972. Print.

Dyer, Richard. The Matter of Images: Essays on Representations. London: Routledge, 1993. 245. Print.


Dyer, Richard (1977) 'Stereotyping', in Richard Dyer (ed.) Gays and Film,
London:British Film Institute

Gardner, John W., Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. "A Nation Is Never Finished." ABA Journal 53 (1967): 1011

Skeggs, B., & Wood, H. (2012). Reacting to reality television: Performance, audience and value. New York: Routledge.

Skeggs, B. (2012). Reality television and class London: Palgrave Macmillan.


Wyatt, W. (2012). The ethics of reality TV


Academic Papers:

Macdonald, Rob, Professor, Tracy Shildrick, Professor, and Andy Furlong, Professor. Benefits Street and the Myth of Workless Communities.Teesside University; University of Glasgow; University of Leeds, n.d. Web. <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/19/3/1.html>.


World Wide Web:

Bloom, J. (2011, August 17). UK unemployment total on the rise. Retrieved January 8, 2015, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14555264

Brooker, C. (n.d.). Benefits Street – poverty porn, or just the latest target for pent-up British fury? Benefits Street – Poverty Porn, or Just the Latest Target for Pent-up British Fury?

Brooker, C. (n.d.). Benefits Street – poverty porn, or just the latest target for pent-up British fury? Benefits Street – Poverty Porn, or Just the Latest Target for Pent-up British Fury?

Channel 4, (2014). Welcome to James Turner Street | Benefits Street (S1-Ep1) | Channel 4. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkKJQF1xSJU&safe=active

Channel 4, (2014). Welcome to James Turner Street | Benefits Street (S1-Ep1) | Channel 4. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkKJQF1xSJU&safe=active

Channel 4, (2014). Welcome to James Turner Street | Benefits Street (S1-Ep1) | Channel 4. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkKJQF1xSJU&safe=active

Collier, H. (n.d.). Channel 4 executive denies 'stitch up' accusations over Benefits Street. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/10/channel-4-stitch-up-benefits-street

Collier, H. (n.d.). Channel 4's Benefits Street claims 4.3 million viewers. The Guardian. Retrieved from Channel 4's Benefits Street claims 4.3 million viewers Plunkett, J. (n.d.). Benefits Street to be investigated by Ofcom following viewers' complaints. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/feb/25/benefits-street-investigated-ofcom-channel-4

Collier, H. (n.d.). Channel 4 executive denies 'stitch up' accusations over Benefits Street. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/10/channel-4-stitch-up-benefits-street

Fletcher, Alex. "Benefits Street: Essential Documentary or Poverty Porn?"Digital Spy. N.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a543116/benefits-street-essential-documentary-or-poverty-porn.html#~p0NsgBABQeUvXp>.

Muir, Hugh. "Who Cares If Immigrants Have English as a Second Language?"The Guardian n.d.: n. pag. Print.

New EU migrants add £5bn to UK, report says. (2014, November 5). Retrieved March 16, 2015, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29910497

Robinson, M. (n.d.). 'Benefits Street producers don't give a damn as long as it brings in the viewers':
Channel 4 condemned by residents as film crews move in to begin new series of controversial show.Daily Mail. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2734500/Benefits-Street-2-begins-filming-deprived-crime-hit-area-Stockton-Tees-sparking-anger-MPs-locals.html


Television Programmes/Videos:

Channel 4, (2015). Benefits Street. [online] Available at: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/benefits-street

Channel 4, (2014). Welcome to James Turner Street | Benefits Street (S1-Ep1) | Channel 4. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkKJQF1xSJU&safe=active

Channel 4, (2014). No Handouts | Benefits Street (S1-Ep2) | Channel 4. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-68r3w58aI&safe=active.


Loach, K. (1974). The Family [Television series episode].BBC. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZArtrC5rpV)


 Love Productions, prod. Why Don't You Speak English? Channel 4. N.d. Television.


Lectures:

Jones, O. (Director) (2014, December 16). Media, Class and Identity. Media Magazine Conference 2015. Lecture conducted from , London.



Work Consulted:

Books:

Jones, O. (2011). Chavs: The demonization of the working class. London: Verso.

Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition making sense of people. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press


World Wide Web:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/11/18/channel-4-benefits-street_n_6177654.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-entertainment&ir=UK+Entertainment

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

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/making-it-easier-for-the-media-and-creative-industries-to-grow-while-protecting-the-interests-of-citizens/supporting-pages/public-service-broadcasting


http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/marxism/marxism11.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2734500/Benefits-Street-2-begins-filming-deprived-crime-hit-area-Stockton-Tees-sparking-anger-MPs-locals.html 

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

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






[1] 'Demonised' or 'humane'? Row breaks out on Benefits Street. Channel4.com
[2] Channel 4, (2015). Benefits Street. [online]
[3] Collier, H. (n.d.). Channel 4's Benefits Street claims 4.3 million viewers. The Guardian.
[4] Plunkett, J. (n.d.). Benefits Street to be investigated by Ofcom following viewers' complaints. The Guardian.
[5] ibid
[6] Channel 4, (2014). Welcome to James Turner Street | Benefits Street (S1-Ep1) | Channel 4.
[7] Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics: The creation of the Mods and Rockers. 
[8] Skeggs, B., & Wood, H. (2012). Reacting to reality television: Performance, audience and value (p.36).
[9] Channel 4, (2014). Welcome to James Turner Street | Benefits Street (S1-Ep1) | Channel 4.
[10] New EU migrants add £5bn to UK, report says. (2014, November 5). Retrieved March 16, 2015,
[11] Collier, H. (n.d.). Channel 4 executive denies 'stitch up' accusations over Benefits Street. The Guardian.
[12] MailOnline, S. Unemployed woman, 21, who has never had a job and weighs 32 stone because she 'eats when she's bored' lives on £18,000 benefits a year instead - more than a nurse's salary.
[13] Robinson, M. (n.d.). 'Benefits Street producers don't give a damn as long as it brings in the viewers': Channel 4 condemned by residents as film crews move in to begin new series of controversial show. Daily Mail.
[14] ibid
[15] Brooker, C. (n.d.). Benefits Street – poverty porn, or just the latest target for pent-up British fury? 
[16] Cohen, Stanley. Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1972.
[17] [17] Dyer, Richard. The Matter of Images: Essays on Representations.
[18] Dyer, Richard (1977) 'Stereotyping', in Richard Dyer (ed.) Gays and Film
[19] Skeggs, B., & Wood, H. (2012). Reacting to reality television: Performance, audience and value (p. 37). New York: Routledge.
[20] Skeggs, B., & Wood, H. (2012). Reacting to reality television: Performance, audience and value (p.36). New York: Routledge.
[21] Macdonald, Rob, Professor, Tracy Shildrick, Professor, and Andy Furlong, Professor. Benefits Street and the Myth of Workless.
[22] Anderson, E. (2008). Against the wall: Poor, young, Black, and male (p. 166). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
[23] Jones, O. (2014, December 16). Media, Class and Identity. Media Magazine Conference 2015.
[24] Collier, H. (n.d.). Channel 4 executive denies 'stitch up' accusations over Benefits Street. The Guardian.
[25] Channel 4, (2014). No Handouts | Benefits Street (S1-Ep2) | Channel 4. [video]
[26] Brooker, C. (n.d.). Benefits Street – poverty porn, or just the latest target for pent-up British fury? 
[27] Nelson, F. (n.d.). Benefits Street: The real scandal. The Telegraph
[28] Skeggs, B. (2012). Reality television and class (p. 91).
[29] ibid
[30] Wyatt, W. (2012). The ethics of reality TV: A philosophical examination (p. 33).
[31] Dyer, R. (1993). The matter of images: Essays on representations (p. 12).
[32]  Bloom, J. (2011, August 17). UK unemployment total on the rise. BBC
[33] Cs, G. (1971). History and class consciousness Studies in Marxist dialectics (2. impr. ed.). London: Merlin Press.
[34] Loach, K. (1974). The Family [Television series episode].BBC.
[35] Rogers, S. (n.d.). UK welfare spending: How much does each benefit really cost?
[36] Gardner, John W., Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. "A Nation Is Never Finished." ABA Journal 53 (1967): 1011
[37] Fletcher, Alex. "Benefits Street: Essential Documentary or Poverty Porn?"Digital Spy
[38] Jones, O. (Director) (2014, December 16). Media, Class and Identity. Media Magazine Conference 2015.
[39] Muir, Hugh. "Who Cares If Immigrants Have English as a Second Language?"The Guardian 
[40] Channel 4's Remit - Channel 4 - Info - Corporate.