“This programme ... makes people out as complete scum” Dee
Roberts – James Turner Street
Are contemporary
documentaries, like C4's 'Benefits
Street
The
dominant view of the text being investigated, Channel 4's Benefits Street, is a largely negative one. Channel 4's marketing
of the programme claims that it 'reveals the reality of life on benefits'[2],
when in reality what Channel 4 have achieved is the 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[3]
and trended on twitter after every showing. As well as this Ofcom received
1,800[4]
complaints and became 'Channel 4's most popular programme since the Paralympics
in 2012, attracting audiences of over 5 million'[5].
But
why has the show caused such controversy? The negative 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.
This is evident in the main
promotional trailer for the series, named 'Welcome to James Turner Street
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, portraying a sense of togetherness in the
community. However, the music invokes 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 upbeat 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'[8]
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 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"[9] on the road acts upon
another moral panic in society. Immigration is another moral panic the trailer
reinforces, with the shot of a character not speaking English, and the
reference to 13 nationalities is 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
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 Thailand
From this trailer alone it is absolutely clear that there is an
element of Channel 4 demonising benefit claimants, representing them as lazy
and content to be taking tax payers money. Channel 4 are 'projecting the extreme cases
[that] people then extrapolate [and] say that applies to everybody who is on
benefits'[11]. It
is these extreme cases that aggravate people and eventually completely
villainise an entire class of people.
Channel 4's motive for doing this is the massive out cry on social networks and
newspapers afterwards, which give the show more and more publicity, for example
the show ignited a series of headlines such as this one ' Unemployed woman, 21, who has never had a job and weighs 32 stone
because she 'eats when she's bored' lives on £18,000 benefits a year instead -
more than a nurse's salary'[12] fuelling the demonisation
of those on benefits. Alex Cunningham, Labour MP for Stockton North, 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"[13], whilst a person living in
the area also stated Channel 4 "don't give a damn as long as it brings in
the viewers"[14].
Away
from this, the name Benefits Street itself is a 'title cynically
chosen to push buttons, and that ploy has worked'[15]
according to The Guardian's Charlie Brooker. The title Benefits Street immediately creates negative connotations of people
on benefits and by adding 'street' the idea of a large number of people all
claiming benefits is established 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 title.
Channel 4 have arguably 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 manner which will anger the liberal middle classes and cause them
to publicise it on social media.
The works of Stanley Cohen and
Stuart Hall together provide evidence as to why Channel 4 have succeeded in
having this effect on the audience and the impact stereotypes can have on 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'[16].
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 becoming worried about how their taxes are used in the current
economic climate, with the panic being that they are used on benefit scroungers.
Benefits Street does exploit and
reinforce this moral panic, creating a bigger panic and villainising benefit
claimants even further in society.
Linking to 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,”[17]. Similarly he also cites
that “Stereotypes are highly charged with the feelings that are attached to
them."[18].
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 arguably 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.
ZEITGEIST 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 Benefits
Street
This Marxist perspective can be linked to the
evolution of documentary, which has become steadily less factual in years gone
by, instead becoming incorporated with reality TV, which Benefits 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 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’[19],
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'[20]
in reality television, which is clearly seen in Benefits 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 ‘Benefits 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"[21]
emphasising the misconception spread through the media to demonise the lower
that there are far more 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"[22],
accentuating the hegemonic idea that the media have spread 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".[23]
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 must endure. The poor state of housing is obvious to the
viewer, with very small space provided for large families. In addition, viewing
characters battles 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 heartfelt moment from the show in which
viewers got to see the degree of poverty endured were the scenes of a large
number of Romanian immigrants cramped into a small shed in someone's house as
they were 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 these aspects of the documentary cannot be ignored
simply because of of negative press, linking to Channel 4's head of factual commissioning's
comment "I don't think you should
judge the programme by the extreme reaction represented by a handful of very
intemperate tweets."[24]
Analysing another trailer
for the Benefits Street
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. [He] 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]'[26].
Therefore, Channel 4 arguably did succeed in exposing the grim reality of life
on benefits to some of the audience and therefore the documentary can claim to
have be a success.
The
Telegraph's Fraser Nelson in his article 'Benefits
Street Benefits Street
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 genre 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"[28].
This 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
Another
point made by Wood and Skeggs in the book is that it is the 'dissident
intellectuals' make up the majority 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''[29],
therefore the Marxist idea of shows like Benefits Street are being used to
manipulate the lower class is false.
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"[30]
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[31]'
suggesting that society requires stereotypes to function and is necessary to
make sense of our position in it, meaning those seen in Benefits Street are not
harmful, but accurate and necessary portrayals of the lower class.
However, this view on Benefits
Street
Taking
into consideration the historical and economic context of the documentary we
can see that benefits in general has only recently become a 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 UK
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 anti immigration and benefits, views supported after the recession as
people believe there money is being wasted by benefit claimers and immigrants.
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 easy target for people
to vent their anger as a result of 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
Looking further at historical
examples to compare with Benefits
Street Britain Benefits Street Benefits Street
However, where the two
social documentaries differentiate is in their portrayal of the lower class.
Unlike Benefits 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 providing the viewer with a real insight into what working
class life is actually like, unlike the false reality painted in the heavily
edited Benefits Street
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 Benefits 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
depiction of benefit claimants. As of 2012, over 74%[35] 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 to gain views. The
most recent example is Skint[36],
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 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'.[37]
Owen Jones labelled Channel 4's antagonists in recent documentaries such as 'On Benefits and Proud' as focusing on
"extreme caricatures"[38]
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%[39]
of the UK can not speak English. However the programme creates the impression
that England
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'[40].
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.
3601
words
Work Cited:
Academic books/journals:
Anderson, E. (2008). Against
the wall: Poor, young, Black, and male (p.
166). Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania
Cohen, Stanley. Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The
Creation of the Mods and Rockers. London
Dyer, Richard. The Matter of Images: Essays on
Representations. London
Dyer,
Richard (1977) 'Stereotyping', in Richard Dyer (ed.) Gays and Film,
Gardner, John W., Secretary of
Health, Education and Welfare. "A Nation Is Never Finished." ABA
Skeggs,
B., & Wood, H. (2012). Reacting to reality television: Performance,
audience and value. New York
Skeggs,
B. (2012). Reality television and class London
Wyatt, W. (2012). The
ethics of reality TV
Academic Papers:
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
World
Wide Web:
Bloom, J. (2011, August 17). UK
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?
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
Channel 4, (2014). Welcome to James Turner Street Benefits Street
Channel 4, (2014). Welcome to James Turner Street Benefits Street
Collier, H. (n.d.). Channel 4 executive denies 'stitch up'
accusations over Benefits Street
Collier, H. (n.d.). Channel 4's Benefits Street Benefits
Street
Collier, H. (n.d.). Channel 4 executive denies 'stitch up'
accusations over Benefits Street
Fletcher, Alex. "Benefits Street
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
Robinson, M. (n.d.). 'Benefits Street
Channel 4 condemned by residents as film crews move in to
begin new series of controversial show.Daily Mail. Retrieved from
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2734500/Benefits-Street-2-begins-filming-deprived-crime-hit-area-Stockton-Tees-sparking-anger-MPs-locals.html
Television
Programmes/Videos:
Channel
4, (2015). Benefits Street. [online] Available at:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/benefits-street
Channel 4, (2014). Welcome to James Turner Street Benefits Street
Channel 4, (2014). No Handouts | Benefits Street
Loach, K. (1974). The Family [Television series episode].BBC. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZArtrC5rpV)
Love
Productions, prod. Why Don't
You Speak English? Channel 4.
N.d. Television.
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
Kunda, Z. (1999). Social
cognition making sense of people. Cambridge ,
Mass.
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://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/marxism/marxism11.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2734500/Benefits-Street-2-begins-filming-deprived-crime-hit-area-Stockton-Tees-sparking-anger-MPs-locals.html
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
[1] 'Demonised'
or 'humane'? Row breaks out on Benefits
Street
[2] Channel 4, (2015).
Benefits Street. [online]
[3] Collier, H. (n.d.). Channel 4's Benefits Street
[4] Plunkett, J. (n.d.). Benefits Street to be investigated by
Ofcom following viewers' complaints. The
Guardian.
[5] ibid
[6] Channel 4, (2014). Welcome
to James Turner Street Benefits Street
[7] Cohen, S. (1972). Folk
devils and moral panics: The creation of the Mods and Rockers.
[8]
Skeggs, B., &
Wood, H. (2012). Reacting to reality television: Performance, audience
and value (p.36).
[10] New EU migrants add £5bn to UK
[11] Collier, H. (n.d.). Channel 4 executive denies 'stitch up'
accusations over Benefits Street
[12] MailOnline, S. Unemployed woman, 21, who has never
had a job and weighs 32 stone because she 'eats when she's bored' lives on
£18,000 benefits a year instead - more than a nurse's salary.
[13] Robinson, M. (n.d.). 'Benefits Street
[14] ibid
[15] Brooker, C. (n.d.). Benefits Street – poverty porn, or just
the latest target for pent-up British fury?
[16] Cohen, Stanley. Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The
Creation of the Mods and Rockers. London
[18] Dyer, Richard (1977)
'Stereotyping', in Richard Dyer (ed.) Gays and Film
[19] Skeggs, B., & Wood, H. (2012). Reacting
to reality television: Performance, audience and value (p. 37). New York
[20] Skeggs, B., & Wood, H.
(2012). Reacting to reality television: Performance, audience and value (p.36).
New York
[21] Macdonald, Rob, Professor, Tracy Shildrick, Professor, and Andy
Furlong, Professor. Benefits
Street and the Myth of Workless.
[22] Anderson, E. (2008). Against
the wall: Poor, young, Black, and male (p.
166). Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania
[23] Jones, O. (2014, December 16). Media, Class and Identity. Media Magazine Conference 2015.
[24] Collier, H. (n.d.). Channel 4 executive denies 'stitch up'
accusations over Benefits Street
[26] Brooker, C. (n.d.). Benefits Street – poverty porn, or just
the latest target for pent-up British fury?
[29] ibid
[31] Dyer, R. (1993). The
matter of images: Essays on representations (p. 12).
[32] Bloom, J.
(2011, August 17). UK
[33] Cs, G. (1971). History and class
consciousness Studies in Marxist dialectics (2. impr. ed.). London
[34] Loach,
K. (1974). The Family [Television series episode].BBC.
[36] Gardner, John W., Secretary of Health,
Education and Welfare. "A Nation Is Never Finished." ABA
[37] Fletcher, Alex. "Benefits Street
[38] Jones, O. (Director) (2014, December 16).
Media, Class and Identity. Media
Magazine Conference 2015.
[40] Channel 4's Remit - Channel 4 - Info -
Corporate.
