1. 1) Overview of Contemporary Case Study
1) What were the context of the riots?
The 2011 London Riots began due to the shooting of Mark Duggan. This,
along with many other contributory factorssuch as poor relations with
police, government cuts and family breakdown, caused an uproar of
moral panic with youths across the country rioting to gain respect and a
voice against authorities. Disturbances began on the date of the shooting,
the 4th August, and escalated across London (in particular Tottenham – a
prime area for high density of black gang culture) and other cities in the
country, including Manchester, Liverpool and Bristol as a result of
‘copycat’ violence. Rioters, or folk devils according to theorist Stanley
Cohen, would take part in activities including burning vehicles, attacking
police and disrupting society. In the few days that followed, police started
to overpower these youths and took charge by arresting and admitting
charges to those who were apart of the moral panic.
The shooting of Mark Duggan was used as a springboard for the start of
these riots. People started bringing up other serious issues in society,
which gave others in poorer communities unfair advantages. This
included poor relations with police, where living in a certain area in
London would cause a prejudiced identity as part of a negative
community. For example, living in Tottenham could result in people
judging you as part of a large negative community where in reality you
may not be a part of that. Other issues include family breakdown where
certain families would also be given advantages over others based on
where they lived or their cultural background. Unemployment is also an
issue that had great impact in the London riots. The fact that employment
was sparse in certain areas, or for certain societies was treated as
unreasonable and caused social deviance to want to stand up to
government decisions.
2) Were youths given a fair and unbiased representation in the press
coverage of the riots?
I personally don’t think youths had a fair and unbiased representation in
the press coverage of the riots, as most of the news reports we see and I
have researched show only interviews with police or members of
authority discussing their viewpoints of the disturbances. There were
only a handful of videos that were actually of the rioters themselves being
interviewed by press that gave them a chance to tell the public why these
riots were going on and what part they had in it all. Most of the other
videos were of police explaining what they were doing to try and prevent
it all happening and how they saw the riots.
3) How can the coverage of the London riots be understood in
relation to the ideas of Stan Cohen?

2. Stan Cohen’s theory describes youths as ‘folk devils’ in society,
meaning that those who create a sense of moral panic (an idea or
issue that threatens social order) due to disruptions in society are
social deviance. In the London Riots, this was majorly the case, as a
very large proportion of people involved were young and was
causing a scene to try and change rules and regulations. Although
not all youths would have participated in the riots, the entire
generation would suffer and be labelled ‘thugs’, ‘yobs’ and other
negative sensationalist language, creating a prejudice opinion
towards us as a group. Cohen’s theory is, in fact, against youths as
his idea of folk devils talks about youths as a whole and doesn’t
take into account those who are innocent, and therefore creates a
rival between our generation and older generations who may
associate youths with anti-social behavior. The riots itself would
not have done youths justice, as older generation would have
already had a biased opinion on the age group due to other issues
in society such as knife crime and other offences. In the London
riots, so many young people were involved which resulted in
public services and members of authority to panic as it was so bad
that even newspaper tabloids stated that police had ‘no control’.
Stanley Cohen also talks about his idea of ‘Deviance Amplification’,
meaning that anything youths do that is seen as negative the press
will take control and make the matter sound worse than it is in
reality, causing an even bigger hate for youths and youth culture in
older generations.
4) David Gauntlettstated that “Identities are not ‘given’ but are
constructed and negotiated.”
From the research which you have conducted into the coverage of
the London Riots, to what extent is the representation of the
collective identity of youths constructed by the press? Consider for
and against argument.
Ideas for:
One broadcast video of a young man confronting mayor of London Boris Johnson
gave youths a chance to speak out about their views. This fortunately was a
popular broadcast and the young man talking to him did not swear and showed
respect, which was an advantage to our collective identity as in some cases it
may have shocked people who thought youths were ‘all the same’. This supports
Gauntlett’s theory stating that identities are constructed depending what we say
or do. To give someone an identity, something needs to have happened to change
opinions and therefore this also supports the theory that ‘identities are forever
evolving and changing in society’.
Ideas against:
As expected, there is more research against youth culture than there is for. Most
news broadcasts that I researched in this case study I found were very biased
towards the police and government and gave others a negative perspective
towards youths. For example, in most broadcasts, reporters would slyly speak to

3. the teenagers and young people in a certain way and word their questions to
make it look like it was entirely our fault when it was only certain groups of
people. This also supports Gauntlett’s theory as most people judge young people
on their behavior and therefore ‘give’ them their negative identity without
actually knowing them as a person, and obviously if all the press broadcast is this
negative perspective it will make people think that young people are all like the
way we saw in the riots. This would be a different story if people did construct
identities rather than label them, as I’m sure many older people would have a
different opinion of youth culture after judging it nationally.