“This programme has nothing to do with
community, which you can tell from the title. It’s all about people in the
street living off benefits, taking drugs and dossing around all day. It makes
people out as complete scum” Dee Roberts – James Turner Street resident
Are contemporary documentaries, like
C4's 'Benefit’s 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 Benefit's
Street, is a largely negative one. Channel 4's marketing of the programme
claims that it 'reveals the reality of life on benefits',
when in reality what Channel 4 have achieved is the complete 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
and trended on twitter every time it was aired. As well as this Ofcom received
1,800
complaints and became 'Channel 4's most
popular programme since the Paralympics in 2012, attracting audiences of over 5
million'.
But why has the show caused such
controversy? The vicious 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.
To
the extent to which Channel 4 have represented benefit claimants in this way, the
main promotional trailer for the series, named 'Welcome to James Turner Street'
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 accentuates the common
misconception that more people are on benefits than there actually are. The
director is fully aware that the subject matter of unemployed people is a moral
panic
in society, and therefore the repetition of the word is highly likely to
aggravate people. The way in which she uses gesture to point out the houses and
her tone of voice suggests she shows know remorse or guilt for being unemployed
or for others being unemployed, there is almost an idea of her happily
labelling people unemployed as if it is a common and acceptable thing, which
will also anger viewers, further highlighted by another character stating
"5 % of the people on this road work".
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 and portray a sense of togetherness in the community. However, all
the music does is enrage 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 up beat 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' 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 that 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"
on the road acts upon another moral panic in society. The idea of immigration
is another controversial subject and the shot of a character not speaking
English, as well as 13 nationalities is highly 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, when in
fact this is not true as immigrants contribute a significant amount to our
economy. This is proven by the fact that 'They added £4.96bn
more in taxes in the years to 2011 than they took out in public services'.
The
constant panning shot of a child jumping over fences could perhaps represent a
future of crime on the streets, with children of those on benefits destined to
lives of crime, shown by the fact that he is jumping over fences. The fact that
the child is black may also be significant as all of the shots of crime and
aggressive behaviour are from black people, highlighted by the black male
holding a hammer and acting aggressively at the end of the sequence. This
conforms to yet another stereotype that black people are aggressive and commit
acts of violence/crime as well as the stereotype that people on benefits are
criminals and are uneducated.
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 Channel 4 have set out to completely demonise benefit
claimants, representing them as lazy and completely happy to be taking tax
payers money and the motive for this is clear. Channel 4 are 'projecting the extreme cases
[that] people then extrapolate [and] say that applies to everybody who is on
benefits'. It
is these extreme cases that aggravate people and eventually completely
villainise an entire class of people. The result of this is massive publicity
as we have already established, the massive out cry on social networks and
newspapers only continues to give the show more and more publicity, the perfect
outcome for a channel looking to gain views and make profit. Alex Cunningham, Labour MP for Stockton North, the
area 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",
whilst a person living in the area also stated Channel 4 "don't give a
damn as long as it brings in the viewers".
Away from this, the name Benefit’s Street itself is a 'title cynically chosen to push buttons, and
that ploy has worked'
according to The Guardian's Charlie Brooker. The title Benefit’s Street immediately brings up negative connotations of
people on benefits and by adding 'street' to the end creates an idea of a large
number of people all claiming benefits 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 and sardonic title.
There is no doubt that Channel 4 have 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 manor which will
anger people and cause them to publicise it on social media.
The works of Stanley Cohen and Stuart Hall together offer evidence as to
why Channel 4 have succeeded in having this affect on the audience and the true
extent that stereotypes can affect 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'.
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 being worried about how their taxes are used in the current
economic climate, with the panic being that they are used on benefit claimants
who happily scrounge off taxes. Benefit’s Street does it's very best to exploit
and reinforce this moral panic, creating a bigger panic and villainising
benefit claimants even further in society. Immigration similarly is another
moral panic in society with people worried about the current lack of jobs and
perceived influx of immigrants; also spread through stereotypical documentaries
on Channel 4 other than Benefit's Street
such as 'Why don't you speak English';
a series clearly made just to anger viewers.
Complimenting 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,”. Similarly he also cites
that “Stereotypes are highly charged with the feelings that are attached to
them.".
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 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 that Channel 4 clearly do not care
about.
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 Benefit’s 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 the idea of hegemony in which the ruling classes, 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 less and less factual as years have gone by and instead has been
incorporated with reality TV, which Benefit’s 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 perhaps 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’,
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'
in reality television, which is clearly seen in Benefit’s 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 ‘Benefit’s 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"
emphasising the misconception spread through the media to demonise the lower
classes by making people think that there is a far larger number of 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",
accentuating the hegemonic idea that the media have created 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".
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 in the show must
endure. The constant poor state of housing is obvious to the viewer with very
small space provided for large families. In addition, viewing characters' battles
with 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 heart felt moment from the show in which viewers clearly
got to see the degree of poverty some benefit claimants have to endure were the
scenes of a large number of Romanian immigrants cramped into a small shed in
someone's house due to being 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 we can not take these aspects
of the documentary away simply because of a large amount of negative press, as
stated by the Channel 4's head of factual commissioning who commented "I don't think you should judge the programme
by the extreme reaction represented by a handful of very intemperate
tweets."
Analysing another trailer for the Benefit’s Street
series, a positive sequence can be seen in which a group of immigrants are
portrayed positively. The trailer named 'No Handouts' shows
an ethnic minority family working to gain money by taking other people's scrap
metal because they do not want to claim benefits like others. This therefore
acts to discredit the stereotype shown in the main trailer that immigrants
simply come to the country to gain work. The idea that they are not happy to
claim benefits and are doing everything they can not to will be seen positively
by the audience and create a positive representation of minorities. This is
also highlighted by the fact that when the narrator states that they "Do
not take a penny from the dole" the shot switches back to a white family
who are on benefits, also going against the common stereotype that white people
work and ethnics don't.
However,
even in this fairly positive sequence there are underlying stereotypes; the
fact that they can not speak English may be another issue that will be addressed
by reformers against immigrants. Also, the fact that they state that they can
not get the paper work to get a proper job suggests that they are in the
country illegally which will again anger the viewers and also act upon the
moral panic of immigration.
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. I 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]'.
Therefore, it is clear that Channel 4 did succeed in exposing the grim reality
of life on benefits to some of the audience and therefore the documentary can
claim to have been to an extent a success.
The Telegraph's Fraser Nelson in his
article 'Benefit’s Street: the real scandal' 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 out cry 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 Benefit’s Street and
Channel 4 succeeding in highlighting flaws in the welfare system and perhaps
Nelson is right, and that the public anger should be vented towards the
government for creating the conditions for those we see villainised in the
show. It may be suggested therefore that a majority of people have merely
misinterpreted the documentary, perceiving it to be glamorising life on
benefits when in fact it does expose us to the grim realities of slums inside
sheds and government deficiencies.
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 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".
This clearly 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 can be seen as
not an attempt to 'dumb down' the proletariat, but instead is simply
documentary complying with what is currently popular. Benefit’s 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' that make up the large
amount of people 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''.
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"
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, and hence actually make and reproduce themselves'
suggesting that society actually requires stereotypes in order to function and
is necessary to make sense of our position in it, whether it be our religious
group or economic class, meaning those seen in Benefits Street not harmful, but accurate and necessary to portray
the lower class.
However, this view on Benefit’s Street is
completely false. The large 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 is ridiculous. The quote from Senior 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 stereotype after
stereotype and constantly looks to provoke the tax paying audience by
portraying the benefit claimers in the most negative way possible, with very
few isolated scenes in which the audience can feel any sympathy for those on
screen.
Taking into consideration the
historical and economic context of the documentary we can see that benefits in
general has only recently become a very 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 various funding constantly cut and
taxes being raised. Figures such as unemployment rising by 2.6 million in the UK
as a result of the recession along with 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.
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 completely anti immigration and
benefits, views supported after the recession as people believe there money is
being wasted by benefit claimers and immigrants who are taking their jobs. 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 simple target for people to
vent their anger thanks to 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. 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 Benefit’s Street,
Ken Loach's fly on the wall series 'The
Family' 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 Benefit’s Street that can be made are
the similarities between the two programmes. Like Benefit’s Street, The Family
uses the typical documentary conventions of a narrator, as well as keeping a
multi strand narrative, following different members of The Family.
However, where the two social documentaries become different is in their
portrayal of the lower class. Unlike Benefit’s
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. This allows the reader to gain an
accurate insight into what working class life is actually like, unlike the
false reality painted in the heavily edited Benefit’s Street. One example of
this is the scene at 16 minutes, in which the mother of the family tells her
child to study in school in order to gain a good job in the future, as well as
showing many other scenes of caring parenting between them. Scenes like this
however are completely absent in Benefit’s Street, which constantly depicts
children as wondering alone on the street, like in the ‘Welcome to James Turner
Street’
trailer, which gives the idea that benefit claimants are lazy parents and only
have kids to claim more money to the audience. Similarly, the scene at 34
minutes where an unemployed housewife speaks about being on the council housing
waiting list for 16 years is a scene which provokes no sense of animosity or
indignation from the viewer, unlike when watching Benefit’s Street. This may be
down to the lack of ironic upbeat diegetic music heard in the background of Benefit’s
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 Benefit’s 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 nature of the depiction of benefit claimants. As
of 2012, over 74% 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 simply to gain views. The most recent example is Skint,
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 Benefit’s
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'.
Owen Jones labelled Channel 4's antagonists in recent documentaries such as 'On Benefits and Proud' as focusing on
"extreme caricatures"
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%
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'.
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.
Work Cited:
Academic
books/journals:
London:British Film
Institute
Gardner, John W.,
Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. "A Nation Is Never
Finished." ABA Journal 53 (1967): 1011
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?
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
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
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's Remit - Channel 4 -
Info - Corporate
http://www.channel4.com/info/corporate/about/channel-4s-remit
Loach, K. (1974). The Family [Television series episode].BBC.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZArtrC5rpV)
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://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
Channel 4's Remit - Channel 4 - Info -
Corporate
