Stuart Hall's theory argues that the media is presumably reflecting reality whilst in fact they are constructing it. He described the youth as a symbol of defiance, and made declaration that they frequently attempt to adopt behaviour that appears threatening, rebellious, and/or violent.
Young people (including children) looting is a great example to prove that Stuart Hall's theory is correct.
'It has been an all-too-frequent theme of the past few days: Child rioters flaunting their contempt for the law, confident that they would escape with a slap on the wrist.' - Daily Mail.
Daily Mail also addressed that the vast majority of young children appearing before courts were released under 'referral orders'. It is clear that children aged from 10 are not afraid to act in an unmanageable way as they are aware that they will only receive light punishments, such as meeting 'support workers' or 'observe cerfews'. It also means that prison is an absolute last resort. However, they do not have any indication of how serious these things are and their understanding of violence is limited due to their young age, so it is something to consider as to whether media is constructing this or not.
Personally, I agree with Hall's opinion on media increasing or making young people act in a terribly shocking manner, although it is unintentional. If media did not exist (e.g. TV showing the rioting), then I feel that the chances of young people acting illegally will rapidly decrease as there will be reduced ways for them to hear such shocking news and make them feel or think differently.
I think Hall's theory would not account for the rioting in its entirety although certainly you have argued quite successfully that it has some relevance. Try to develop this further and use media language as much as possible.
ReplyDeleteMrs H