Social Media Response

How far were the responses of the rioters themselves given space in the media?


Throughout the articles and television broadcasts I have collected its clear that the rioters have very little space to  have a response to the negative press that they get. Unfortunately because the youths don't have a voice to back them up in the media all youths are given a stereotype by everyone in society as criminals and vandals, despite the fact that most youths are law abiding citizens who find it difficult to not be victimized by the public for being a youth in today's world. The youths did however did get a quiet voice through a young man who discusses with Boris Johnson, the video clip of this is in my previous research. The voice did give the point of view from the other side but it wasn't strong enough top persuade the public that the youths are good people, it wasn't strong enough to beat the media and their negative influence on youths. Apart from this clip all other clips and articles only show the damage some youths do to property and had people give their thoughts on it. Thoughts of the public though and not any thoughts of any youths.

What sorts of young people were given space to respond in the media debates?


A clip I found shows that actors speak within group discussion on why the youth of today act the way they do, suggesting that the parents have lost their power over their kids because of fear of being prosecuted for child abuse. People expect parents to make their kids a good citizen, but how is that possible when the parents power is taken away? The video clip below shows the actor Adam Deacon speaking on the Young Voters and gives the youths a voice, a voice which people will listen too because he is a successful, popular actor.




To what extent did social media challenge or confirm representations of youth identity in the mass media during the the time of the London riots?
-Discuss the positive and negative
-Use examples and theory to illustrate your argument