Textual Analysis - Task 1

TEXT 1

The first shot of this trailer to the first benefits street series depicts a women 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 far less people are on benefits than most people think. 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 and anger 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 the 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 a 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 more jolly atmosphere and portray the sense of togetherness and happiness in the community. However all the music does is enrage the music further, with the alternative 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.

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 read also 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 some people, as well as 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.

The constant panning shot of a child jumping over fences could perhaps represent a future of crime on the street, with children of people on benefits are destined to lives of crimes, 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 costume of the majority of the characters in this sequence are of stereotypical, with most characters not wearing any expensive clothing, mainly plain, average clothes. However many of the characters, such as the woman at the beginning are wearing the brand 'addidas' which can be seen as quite a 'chavy' brand for the 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 is highly significant as it suggests that the man has been on holiday to Thailand which is likely to anger the audience who will be outraged at the fact that someone on benefits is going on luxurious holidays to places like Thailand, using tax payers 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.


TEXT 2

This however is a contrasting sequence to my first text. In this text Channel 4's preferred reading - the idea that the are positively representing and revealing the true struggle of the characters on the show - is being highlighted.

In the sequence an ethnic minority family is shown working to gain money by taking other people's scrap metal because they do not want to claim benefits like the others. This therefore acts to reverse and discredit the stereotype shown in the first text 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 claim them will be seen positively by the audience and creates 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 goes against the common stereotype that white people work and immigrants don't.

However the fact that they can not speak English may be another issue that will be address by people that are against immigrants, such as the psycho-graphic of reformers. Also the fact that they state that they can not get the paper work to get a proper job suggests that they are perhaps in the country llegally which will again anger the viewers and also acts upon the moral panic of immigration.

Looking at the costume of the characters, the bright green jacket worn by some of the workers when putting metal in their van connotes that they are working as the jacket is commonly worn by builders and other people while at work.

Tutorial Targets Review

Update new title on blog

Think about production idea

Research public service broadcasting - aims of Channel 4?

Research into stereotypes and representation:

• Theory quotes
• How they're used in narratives
• How they're used in society

Wider contexts:

• Economic - recession
• Social - Underclass
• Globalisation

All on:

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3443382208218959349#editor/target=post;postID=6282020026362779377;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=2;src=postname

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3443382208218959349#editor/target=post;postID=690590204381080889;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=4;src=postname

Proposal Tutorial Feedback

Update new title on blog

Think about production idea

Research public service broadcasting - aims of Channel 4?

Research into stereotypes and representation:

• Theory quotes
• How they're used in narratives
• How they're used in society

Wider contexts:

• Economic - recession
• Social - Underclass
• Globalisation

Critical Investigation Notes & Quotes

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

"They don't give a damn as long as it brings in the viewers. They don't care if anyone gets hurt" - Person living on Kingston Road, Stockton.

'We are getting it 24/7 down here. They will edit the truth so it looks like lies and edit the lies so it looks like the truth" - Person living on Kingston Road, Stockton.

'I think it is disgusting it is making it our street look like a hell hole. They are claiming it is a programme which shows everyone in the community helping out but it's not."  - Person living on Kingston Road, Stockton.

'There is no doubt this is about exploiting vulnerable people in order to make money. I know they will say it is about trying to give people a voice, but all they will do is expose them to the full glare of the national media" - Alex Cunningham, Labour MP for Stockton North

"I don't want them here making a programme which will show people in the worst possible light and potentially do such huge damage. For the producers it's easy ratings for a few weeks, but the damage they do can last much longer."  - James Wharton, Tory MP for Stockton South

"The vast majority of people know that the programme plays to negative stereotypes and I'm certain it won't reflect the amazing sense of community we have here in Stockton" - Stockton Council leader Bob Cook

"There are some brilliant people in Stockton and I think the programme tries to show the worst.I used to be a fan of Channel Four before Benefits Street started. It disappoints me." - Eileen Johnson, Labour councillor for Norton South

"When it aired earlier this year Benefits Street attracted widespread controversy, with critics branding it 'poverty porn' and it received 1,800 viewers' complaints. The series was investigated by regulator Ofcom owing to the huge number of complaints"

"It has become Channel 4's most popular programme since the 2012 Paralympics, attracting audiences of more than five million"

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

"They were very clear and transparent with everyone on the street about what the nature of the programme was, why they were there and what the nature of the end product was." - Ralph Lee, Channel 4 head of factual commissioning

When asked about the programme being branded as "poverty porn" by some critics, Lee said: "I am deeply uncomfortable with the phrase. It's inaccurate and patronising towards people who take part in these programmes and open their lives up. It's quite offensive to the people who make them, and make them with diligence and integrity. It's a phrase I resent quite heavily."

When asked about the social media backlash from the public, Lee said: "I don't think you should judge the programme by the extreme reaction represented by a handful of very intemperate tweets."

"It opens a window on part of our welfare state, our country, and if what we see is shocking, then the question is shouldn't we be changing the system? We are really good in Britain at ignoring extreme poverty and pretending it doesn't happen." - The editor of the Spectator magazine, Fraser Nelson

"I don't think this is a freak show, I think it portrays them in quite a positive light. A lot of the characters are ones that I personally warm to. The villain of the piece isn't the people, the villain is the system that makes them lead lives in the way that they do." - The editor of the Spectator magazine, Fraser Nelson

"What struck me is that it was called Benefits Street and then three-quarters or more of the programme actually followed one storyline which 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," - Labour MP, Dame Anne Begg, the chairwoman of the Commons work and pensions committee

"Part of the problem of projecting the extreme cases is that people then extrapolate that and say that applies to everybody who is on benefits. There wasn't anybody who was a typical benefit claimant featured on the programme at all. There was a huge imbalance." Labour MP, Dame Anne Begg, the chairwoman of the Commons work and pensions committee

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/11471252.Benefits_Street___39_a_myth__39__says_Teesside_academic/?ref=mr

“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. Yet our research has demonstrated that this is a myth, in the sense that it does not reflect the facts of the matter.” - Professor Rob MacDonald of Teesside University

“Programmes like Benefits Street are not serious documentaries, despite claims made by the producers to be giving a voice to people who otherwise would not have one. Instead, they are crude and gimmicky entertainment shows out to make a fast buck for television executives, trivialising important issues and perpetuating negative stereotypes by exploiting those people entitled to state support to make ends meet.” - Alex Cunningham, Labour MP for Stockton North

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9116701/britains-dirty-secret/

"We have, as a country, grown used to pretending they don’t exist; we shovel them off to edge-of-town housing estates and pay them to stay there in economic exile. We give them welfare for the foreseeable future, and wish them luck in their drug-addled welfare ghettos. This is our country’s dirty little secret, which has just been exposed by a devastating Channel 4 documentary. And the left are furious."

"The biggest scandal of Benefits Street, which Channel 4 is unlikely to reveal, is that White Dee is behaving rationally in deciding not to work...

Dee is a single mother with two young children.  Were she to earn, say, £90 a week as a cleaner, then the system would reduce her benefits by £70 — an effective tax rate of 78 per cent on that £90 she’s earned. She’d thus be slaving away all week for £20 — far less than the minimum wage"

"If she landed a £23,000-a-year job, her effective tax rate would still be 74 per cent – so she’d end up just £5,975 a year better-off than if she’d spent the year sitting on the sofa watching daytime TV and chatting to her pals on the street. If she then worked extra hours, or earned a pay rise, she’d keep a pitiful 9p in every extra pound paid. This is nothing to do with indolence. Which of us would work at a 91 per cent tax rate?"

"So the tabloid critics are wrong — these people aren’t scroungers, they’re reacting in a way that any of us would in the same situation."

"These 91 per cent tax rates ought to be a national scandal, raised regularly in Parliament. This is why the people of Benefits Street don’t work — and MPs who talk about ‘scroungers’ should ask what they’d do in the same situation. "

"Make a documentary about poverty in Uganda and you could win an award. Look at problems in Britain and you’re reported for thought crime"

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a543116/benefits-street-essential-documentary-or-poverty-porn.html#~oUTlA5LuukaWaa

"Television producers hunt for unsympathetic examples of unemployed people - in this case, on a street in Birmingham; they portray them in the worst possible light; and they fuel the pervasive sense that people on benefits are feckless scroungers," - The Independent's Owen Jones

"Last year's 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"

"In this climate I don't think there is a more important job for programme makers than to record what life is like on the receiving end of the latest tranche of benefit cuts. In fact it's not just important, it's essential." - Channel 4's head of documentaries Nick Mirsky

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

"British society seems to require a regularly-updated register of sanctioned hate figures, about whom it's OK to say more or less anything; people who form a vital pressure valve for this terrifying pent-up societal wrath"

" I didn't hate anyone in it. I liked them. A lot of what they had to put up with looked absolutely awful, but there also seemed to be far more authentic community spirit than I've seen on TV since Postman Pat's Magic Christmas. How you could come away feeling anything other than affection for most of the people involved is beyond me."

""Benefits Street" is a title cynically chosen to push buttons, and that ploy has worked"

 Folk Devils and Moral Panics (1972) - Stanley Cohen

A moral panic occurs when "[a] condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests". Those who start the panic when they fear a threat to prevailing social or cultural values are known by researchers as moral entrepreneurs, while people who supposedly threaten the social order have been described as "folk devils".

Stanley Cohen (1987) defines moral panic as a sudden increase in public perception of the possible ‘threat to societal values and interests’

Amine Zidhou - University of Miami

“Creating consent (hegemony) is never a simple act. It is rather the result of the social structures and the cultural patterns that dictates for each group its behaviour and for each institutions its practices.”

Stuart Hall

"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"

"When blacks appear in the documentary/current affairs part of broadcasting, they are always attached to some 'immigrant issue': they have to be involved in some crisis or drama to become visible actors to the media."

"There has been little, attempt either in drama, documentary or features to explore and express the rich, complex, diverse and troubled experience of blacks."

Richard Dyer

A stereotype “is not merely a short-cut…it is something more. It is the projection upon the world our own sense of value,” (The Role of Stereotypes, 245).

 “it is nor stereotypes, as an aspect of human thought and representation, that are wrong, but who controls and defines them, what interests they serve,”

“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,”

By using stereotypes, we are expressing “an agreement about a social group, as if that agreement arose independently of, the stereotype. Yet for the most part it is from the stereotype that we got our ideas about social groups,”

“Stereotypes are highly charged with the feelings that are attached to them. They (stereotypes) are the fortress of our tradition, and behind its defences we can continue to feel ourselves safe in the position we occupy” (Dyer, 11). 

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


Public Service Broadcasting

http://www.channel4.com/info/corporate/about/channel-4s-remit

Channel 4 remit : (a) demonstrates innovation, experimentation and creativity in the form and content of programmes;

(b) appeals to the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society;

(c) makes a significant contribution to meeting the need for the licensed public service channels to include programmes of an educational nature and other programmes of educative value; and

(d) exhibits a distinctive character.

Does channel 4's remit provide content of an 'educational nature' and 'educative value' with the examples of documentaries explored in my investigation? Or do they simply reinforce stereotypes.

The Digital Economy Act 2010 requires Channel 4 to participate in:

• the making of a broad range of relevant media content of high quality that, taken as a whole, appeals to the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society;
• the making of high quality films intended to be shown to the general public at the cinema in the United Kingdom;
• the broadcasting and distribution of such content and films;
• the making of relevant media content that consists of news and current affairs;
• the making of relevant media content that appeals to the tastes and interests of older children and young adults;
• the broadcasting or distribution by means of electronic communications networks of feature films that reflect cultural activity in the United Kingdom (including third party films)
• the broadcasting or distribution of relevant media content by means of a range of different types of electronic communications networks.

In addition, Channel 4 must also:

• promote measures intended to secure that people are well informed and motivated to participate in society in a variety of ways;
• support the development of people with creative talent, in particular people involved in the film industry and at the start of their careers;
• support and stimulate well-informed debate on a wide range of issues, including by providing access to information and views from around the world and by challenging established views;
• promote alternative views and new perspectives
• provide access to material that is intended to inspire people to make changes in their lives.

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



Recession - context

http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/894/1/47_the_equality_impacts_of_the_current_recession.pdf

http://themediaonline.co.za/2012/05/media-agencies-the-impact-of-the-recession/

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704334604575338691913994892

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

Media investigation proposal reloaded

http://arfamest4.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/critical-investigation-final.html

Working title

 To what extent does news media create moral panic and represent teenagers in a negative way that the public should fear?

Angle

The representation of youths in the media is a modern issue caused by representations in the media and people debate the effects these representations have on society.

Hypothesis

This person will have predicted and has taken the opinion that the media in general represents youths very negatively in the media leading to societies negative stereotypes of youths in general, the term youth now having a negative connotation, as well as negative stereotypes on youth culture such as hoodies.

Linked production piece

This person could have made a linked production that completely follows the negative stereotypes of youths, for example following a young black male committing crimes, wearing a hoodie and carrying a knife.

Alternatively they could opt to completely challenge these stereotypes, following a black teenager as he does charity work or some other positive activity that will challenge the stereotype.

Issues/debates

• Representation and stereotyping

• Media effects

• Moral Panics

• Regulation and censorship

Theories

• Semiotics

• Gender and ethnicity

• Marxism and hegemony

• Dyer - Stereotypes

• Cohen - Moral panics

• Hypodermic needle

This fits into my proposal as my investigation also focuses on negative stereotypes caused by the media and the impacts this has on society.

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.