Knife crime doubles in 2 years
The Sunday Times
August 19, 2007
Colour Coded
Representation and stereotyping;
Media effects;
News Values (Statistics);
Moral Panics;
The full extent of Britain’s violent crime epidemic, which yesterday claimed the life of another teenager, is revealed in shocking new figures that show the number of street robberies involving knives has more than doubled in two years.
Attacks in which a knife was used in a successful mugging have soared, from 25,500 in 2005 to 64,000 in the year to April 2007. The figures mean that each day last year saw, on average, 175 robberies at knife-point in England and Wales – up from 110 the year before and from 69 in 2004-5.
The study, by the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (CCJS) at King’s College London, is based on the government’s own statistics. It shows that knives are used in one in five muggings, twice the frequency reported two years ago. The new figures will renew pressure on ministers to address the rising tide of violence and antisocial behaviour on Britain’s streets.
The surge in knife crime was highlighted yesterday when police announced a murder investigation after Andrew Holland, 16, died following a stabbing in Bolton. The teenager was awaiting his GCSE results this week and wanted to join the army, his family said.
In a separate attack, Northum-bria police charged a man after an incident on the Tyne Bridge in which a policeman was allegedly attacked with a knife.
This weekend David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said ministers had been complacent.
“This explosion in knife crime is the most astounding symptom of Britain’s broken society. The government has been slow to recognise and even slower to act to deal with this plague on the streets of our towns and cities,” said Davis.
Richard Garside, director of the CCJS, said ministers had taken the wrong approach to tackling the problem. “The government has embarked on endless law and order initiatives, yet knife-related robberies appear to be increasing, if the latest figures are to be believed,” he said.
“This challenges the notion that there is a policing or punishment solution to this problem. Success in tackling knife-related violence will require a concerted strategy to deal with the causes of violence, of which the social antagonisms caused by poverty and inequality are key.”
According to the study, to be published next month, there were 320,000 robberies in the 12 months to April 2007. That contrasts with 311,000 last year and 255,000 in 2005.
The number of knife-related muggings seems to be rising rapidly despite a spate of new laws and amnesties.
Earlier this year the government increased the penalty for carrying a knife in public from two to four years’ imprisonment. But the Tories complained that ministers, including Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, had voted against a proposed increase two years before.
Of the 820 homicides in 2005 in England and Wales, 236 – or 29% – were with a knife or other sharp instrument. Those figures showed that knives are used in 6% of all violent crimes.
Critics have accused the government of lacking a coherent strategy to tackle the problem and of resorting to knee-jerk legislative responses.
A Home Office spokesman said: “Public protection is our top priority, which is why we have recently introduced tough legislation such as increasing the maximum sentence for carrying a knife in public without good reason from two to four years.”
Ministers will hope that the latest figures are a blip rather than the reversal of a downward trend since 1995.
Enver Soloman, the CCJS’s deputy director, said there needed to be more research into the problem. “There is no doubt there are more kids carrying knives, but it’s not clear why,” he said.
“Much of it is for personal safety rather than for putting it against someone’s throat.” The new report, which analyses figures in the British Crime Survey, concludes: “Since it’s extremely difficult if not impossible to limit the availability of knives, and knives are merely a tool used in violent crime, success in fighting knife crime will only come with success in dealing with the underlying causes of violence, fear and insecurity.”
Bernard Hogan-Howe, chief constable of Merseyside, yesterday described the increase as “massive” and said police are struggling to cope with the sheer volume of alcohol-fuelled youth crime.
This article was taken from the Times newspaper, issued on the 19th August 2007. The article is about the increase in knife crime, and how the government and the police are trying their best to stiop it from continuing in the way which it is.
The way in which the piece in put across could cause a great deal of moral panic through the statistics, and various opinions broadcasted throughout the review; An example of this being: -The government has been slow to recognise and even slower to act to deal with this plague on the streets of our towns and cities,” said Davis.-. The ways in which this could cause panic are multiple, the least obvious, but most effective is the way that the government are said to be unaware of the effects of knife crime. This is important, as in this society, the government are those who make the rules and inforce changes. If they can not see what is happening on the streets, then it is almost impossible for change, or to make a stop.
Another interesting quote i found was made by Richard Garside (director of the CCJS (Center for Crime and Justice Studies) in Kings College) stating: “The government has embarked on endless law and order initiatives, yet knife-related robberies appear to be increasing, if the latest figures are to be believed,”. This shows that when the government do their part in making changes to restrict knife crime from spreading, they make it worse, and this is an obvious causer of moral panic as it shows that the goverment are in fact no more or less powerful than the public.
This can all be related into Marxism, as it shows how the public are dependant on the upper classed; or in this case the government, to make changes in society. It also reiterates the fact that us as consumers of the media, are meerly pawns in a game of chess where which the government test their rules upon, and watch down on us wen we are in trouble. As pawns, we look up to the government in the hope that they will make the right choices; us being the lower classed.
Saturday, 26 December 2009
Sunday, 20 December 2009
Xmas Task 1 on "An investigation into the medias role in generating the ongoing moral panic in Britain surrounding knife crime"
The moral panic over knife crime
There are two major problems with the current debate about knife crime. The first is that national politicians are seeking to solve what ought to be a problem for the Metropolitan Police – a number of unconnected murders, mostly in London – and misrepresenting that problem in the process as an expression of general social breakdown.
The second is that a genuine and much wider moral malaise is being discussed and interpreted through the prism of this localised crime problem, distorting the nature of that malaise.
As members of the Institute of Ideas’ Education Forum recently noted, the high profile given to knives by politicians and the national media has led to politically-motivated campaigns in schools where knife crime is simply not a problem. This strategy risks having the perverse effect of normalising and glamorising the carrying of knives (”Everyone else has got one: where’s yours?”)
In a paper published by the Institute of Ideas in 2005, sociologist Stuart Waiton coined the term ˜amoral panic’ to describe situations in which the panic is less about a perceived threat to social mores than anxiety about the absence of any moral consensus to be threatened.
Characteristically, such panics give rise to awareness campaigns and authoritarian gimmicks like curfews, rather than any attempt to address hard moral questions, which indeed often have little to do with the particular issue in the news.
The willingness of the political class to see a localised problem with knife crime as emblematic of a “broken society”, and then to offer technical fixes, is testament to a failure of the moral imagination.
Today’s politicians may be unable to resist the temptation to bundle these two very different problems together. A real moral and political lead would mean leaving knife crime to the police, and offering a political vision capable of inspiring all of us rather than keeping the kids off the streets.
There are two major problems with the current debate about knife crime. The first is that national politicians are seeking to solve what ought to be a problem for the Metropolitan Police – a number of unconnected murders, mostly in London – and misrepresenting that problem in the process as an expression of general social breakdown.
The second is that a genuine and much wider moral malaise is being discussed and interpreted through the prism of this localised crime problem, distorting the nature of that malaise.
As members of the Institute of Ideas’ Education Forum recently noted, the high profile given to knives by politicians and the national media has led to politically-motivated campaigns in schools where knife crime is simply not a problem. This strategy risks having the perverse effect of normalising and glamorising the carrying of knives (”Everyone else has got one: where’s yours?”)
In a paper published by the Institute of Ideas in 2005, sociologist Stuart Waiton coined the term ˜amoral panic’ to describe situations in which the panic is less about a perceived threat to social mores than anxiety about the absence of any moral consensus to be threatened.
Characteristically, such panics give rise to awareness campaigns and authoritarian gimmicks like curfews, rather than any attempt to address hard moral questions, which indeed often have little to do with the particular issue in the news.
The willingness of the political class to see a localised problem with knife crime as emblematic of a “broken society”, and then to offer technical fixes, is testament to a failure of the moral imagination.
Today’s politicians may be unable to resist the temptation to bundle these two very different problems together. A real moral and political lead would mean leaving knife crime to the police, and offering a political vision capable of inspiring all of us rather than keeping the kids off the streets.
Monday, 23 November 2009
Selina stokes a diversity debate that needs addressing
It will come as a surprise to few but a delight to many that Selina Scott is suing Five over ageism in its refusal to hire her for a maternity cover role and choice of younger presenters instead. It is a delight not because Five is worse than anyone else in this respect, but because it stokes a debate which urgently needs to be taken more seriously. Casual sexism, ageism and racism are the collective dirty secret of the vast majority of media institutions, and they represent as much of an industrial challenge as they do a moral one.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission's Report on Sex and Power, published last week, drew a depressing picture for women in the workplace. In general the progression of women at the highest level in the workplace is pitiful and the media are no exception: only 13.6% of national newspaper editors (including the Herald and Western Mail) are women; only 10% of media FTSE's 350 companies have women at the helm; and at the BBC, which has often been held as an exemplar of diversity, women make up less than 30% of most senior management positions. It puts into context Jeremy Paxman's deranged rant about the white male in television. Ethnic minority representation is even worse.
A couple of weeks ago Pat Younge, former BBC head of sports programmes and planning who left to work for Discovery in the US, caused a stir at the MediaGuardian Edinburgh International TV Festival by saying that diversity targets should be like financial targets - you don't hit them, you get fired. I have to say that as board champion for diversity at Guardian News and Media I would currently be firing myself and most of the board for some missed targets. But Younge is right - because diversity targets are not just a feelgood add-on, they are vital to the health of any media business. The temptation to hire in one's own image for most managers is as irresistible as it is subliminal - which is why there are a lot of opinionated women working in digital management at the Guardian, and why we all need targets to remind us to look beyond the mirror.
On screen, any number of unconventional-looking ageing blokes (Jeremy Clarkson, Jonathan Ross, Chris Moyles, Alan Sugar, Adrian Chiles, Jeremy Paxman, Simon Cowell, Piers Morgan) are paid at a top rate for the talent they possess beyond their appearance. For women it is an altogether different story - appearance and age are clearly factors in choosing female presenters in a way that they aren't for men.
The media should be deeply concerned about this un-diversity - not because it represents moral turpitude on our part, but because it represents bloody awful business sense. What is happening to the UK population at the moment? It is ethnically diversifying, and it is ageing. It is also the case that it is, as of the 2001 Census, marginally more female than it is male. And we live longer - so older women, and non-white potential audiences are on the rise. In London, the major urban conurbation and key market for so many media brands, the population is around 37% ethnically diverse, yet this is nowhere near reflected in the management structures of media companies. Or indeed in their on-screen or in-paper representation.
How though, can you hope to address audiences for which you have no instinctive feel, and towards which you show casual discrimination? We are all in danger of becoming irrelevant to the changing demographics of our target audience at a time when holding any kind of audience is key to survival. If white men are so good at solving business problems - and given that they represent well over 80% of FTSE 100 directors we can speculate that this is a skill they must possess in measure - then I'm surprised they haven't grasped this one already.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission's Report on Sex and Power, published last week, drew a depressing picture for women in the workplace. In general the progression of women at the highest level in the workplace is pitiful and the media are no exception: only 13.6% of national newspaper editors (including the Herald and Western Mail) are women; only 10% of media FTSE's 350 companies have women at the helm; and at the BBC, which has often been held as an exemplar of diversity, women make up less than 30% of most senior management positions. It puts into context Jeremy Paxman's deranged rant about the white male in television. Ethnic minority representation is even worse.
A couple of weeks ago Pat Younge, former BBC head of sports programmes and planning who left to work for Discovery in the US, caused a stir at the MediaGuardian Edinburgh International TV Festival by saying that diversity targets should be like financial targets - you don't hit them, you get fired. I have to say that as board champion for diversity at Guardian News and Media I would currently be firing myself and most of the board for some missed targets. But Younge is right - because diversity targets are not just a feelgood add-on, they are vital to the health of any media business. The temptation to hire in one's own image for most managers is as irresistible as it is subliminal - which is why there are a lot of opinionated women working in digital management at the Guardian, and why we all need targets to remind us to look beyond the mirror.
On screen, any number of unconventional-looking ageing blokes (Jeremy Clarkson, Jonathan Ross, Chris Moyles, Alan Sugar, Adrian Chiles, Jeremy Paxman, Simon Cowell, Piers Morgan) are paid at a top rate for the talent they possess beyond their appearance. For women it is an altogether different story - appearance and age are clearly factors in choosing female presenters in a way that they aren't for men.
The media should be deeply concerned about this un-diversity - not because it represents moral turpitude on our part, but because it represents bloody awful business sense. What is happening to the UK population at the moment? It is ethnically diversifying, and it is ageing. It is also the case that it is, as of the 2001 Census, marginally more female than it is male. And we live longer - so older women, and non-white potential audiences are on the rise. In London, the major urban conurbation and key market for so many media brands, the population is around 37% ethnically diverse, yet this is nowhere near reflected in the management structures of media companies. Or indeed in their on-screen or in-paper representation.
How though, can you hope to address audiences for which you have no instinctive feel, and towards which you show casual discrimination? We are all in danger of becoming irrelevant to the changing demographics of our target audience at a time when holding any kind of audience is key to survival. If white men are so good at solving business problems - and given that they represent well over 80% of FTSE 100 directors we can speculate that this is a skill they must possess in measure - then I'm surprised they haven't grasped this one already.
Coursework Title
C.I= "An investigation into the medias role in generating the ongoing moral panic in Britain surrounding black teenage males"
L.O= "To produce a two minute long opening introducing the documentary in a 'channel 4' style format"
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/batty-man
L.O= "To produce a two minute long opening introducing the documentary in a 'channel 4' style format"
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/batty-man
Friday, 20 November 2009
Konnie Huq turns seductress for HIV awareness ad
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/19/konnie-huq-hiv-awareness
The former Blue Peter presenter Konnie Huq appears as a seductress in a tongue-in-cheek web video ad that aims to show young people that it is OK to kiss someone with HIV.
The online ad, created by the British Red Cross, has been created in the runup to World Aids Day on 1 December.
Developed by Red Bee Media, the 60-second ad aims to tackle the prejudices that many under-25s hold about those with HIV and Aids.
The ad opens in the style of a fashion or drinks commercial with Huq sitting sexily on a bar stool, asking: "If I had HIV, what would it take to get you to kiss me?"
Huq then runs through an increasingly ridiculous set of measures, such as shaving her tongue and wearing a chemical hazard suit, as she attempts to convince viewers to agree to kiss her.
"Knowing you can't catch HIV from kissing is one thing – but when young people were asked if this was something they would actually do, the majority still said no," said Huq. "The video is a light-hearted way of challenging some of the negative assumptions people hold and hopefully forcing them to rethink."
The British Red Cross ran research among 15- to 25-year-olds that found that while 85% of young people knew that it is not possible to contract HIV from a kiss, 69% still said they would not kiss someone HIV positive.
"The video also acts as a call to action to young people to encourage them to sign up as peer educators – young people who train and teach people their own age, covering a range of humanitarian issues including HIV," said Alyson Lewis, the health and care team leader at the BRC.
The former Blue Peter presenter Konnie Huq appears as a seductress in a tongue-in-cheek web video ad that aims to show young people that it is OK to kiss someone with HIV.
The online ad, created by the British Red Cross, has been created in the runup to World Aids Day on 1 December.
Developed by Red Bee Media, the 60-second ad aims to tackle the prejudices that many under-25s hold about those with HIV and Aids.
The ad opens in the style of a fashion or drinks commercial with Huq sitting sexily on a bar stool, asking: "If I had HIV, what would it take to get you to kiss me?"
Huq then runs through an increasingly ridiculous set of measures, such as shaving her tongue and wearing a chemical hazard suit, as she attempts to convince viewers to agree to kiss her.
"Knowing you can't catch HIV from kissing is one thing – but when young people were asked if this was something they would actually do, the majority still said no," said Huq. "The video is a light-hearted way of challenging some of the negative assumptions people hold and hopefully forcing them to rethink."
The British Red Cross ran research among 15- to 25-year-olds that found that while 85% of young people knew that it is not possible to contract HIV from a kiss, 69% still said they would not kiss someone HIV positive.
"The video also acts as a call to action to young people to encourage them to sign up as peer educators – young people who train and teach people their own age, covering a range of humanitarian issues including HIV," said Alyson Lewis, the health and care team leader at the BRC.
Thursday, 19 November 2009
Cadbury Dairy Milk ad cleared of racism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/nov/11/cadbury-dairy-milk-cleared-racism
The advertising regulator has cleared Cadbury of racism and perpetuating colonial stereotypes of African people in its latest TV advertising campaign.
Cadbury's campaign featured Ghanaian musician Tinny and aimed to promote the chocolate brand's tie-up with the Fairtrade organisation for cocoa from the African nation for its Dairy Milk range.
The Advertising Standards Authority received 29 complaints that the TV campaign was demeaning to African people and perpetuated racial stereotypes.
However, the ASA's council has decided not to formally investigate the complaints. "Although the council acknowledges that Cadbury had used stereotypes in their ads, they felt that the stereotypes were not harmful or offensive," said the ASA, which argued that most ads use some form of stereotype device to get a age across.
Cadbury has steadfastly maintained that the company went to "considerable lengths" to ensure that the ad campaign was culturally sensitive and developed as a "joyous and uplifting portrayal of Ghanaian culture and something which Ghanaians can feel proud of".
In 2007 the ASA banned an ad for Cadbury's Trident chewing gum, which featured a black "dub poet" speaking in rhyme with a strong Caribbean accent, after more than 500 complaints that it was racist.
The advertising regulator has cleared Cadbury of racism and perpetuating colonial stereotypes of African people in its latest TV advertising campaign.
Cadbury's campaign featured Ghanaian musician Tinny and aimed to promote the chocolate brand's tie-up with the Fairtrade organisation for cocoa from the African nation for its Dairy Milk range.
The Advertising Standards Authority received 29 complaints that the TV campaign was demeaning to African people and perpetuated racial stereotypes.
However, the ASA's council has decided not to formally investigate the complaints. "Although the council acknowledges that Cadbury had used stereotypes in their ads, they felt that the stereotypes were not harmful or offensive," said the ASA, which argued that most ads use some form of stereotype device to get a age across.
Cadbury has steadfastly maintained that the company went to "considerable lengths" to ensure that the ad campaign was culturally sensitive and developed as a "joyous and uplifting portrayal of Ghanaian culture and something which Ghanaians can feel proud of".
In 2007 the ASA banned an ad for Cadbury's Trident chewing gum, which featured a black "dub poet" speaking in rhyme with a strong Caribbean accent, after more than 500 complaints that it was racist.
Monday, 16 November 2009
Relation to Different Media Representations
BBC Opinion Based
Ch Supt Jack Russell said: "I called a meeting because of serious concerns I had regarding possible trouble between rival groups who may attend the carnival.
"I believe that some groups who have been involved in the recent spate of firearms incidents could use the event to continue their disagreements.
"I want the carnival to go ahead because it wouldn't be reasonable or fair to cancel an event which not only celebrates the history of the West Indian culture but also brings together many other diverse communities in our city."
About 12,000 people are expected to attend the event.
Ch4 Opinion based
A teenager was killed in a gang-related shooting a few streets from where I live in East London. As the police cordoned off the crime scene and the TV cameras arrived, I began to wonder what separates our lives so much that while some of us can look forward to a bright future full of opportunity, others end up involved in guns, drugs and crime before they have a driving licence. In Britain, does your postcode determine your future or are teens in poorer areas just easy targets to blame? Are schools failing to inspire teens to chose another route? Why are gangs, so-called ASBO kids and 'hoodies' all so attractive to frustrated and disillusioned teens in the first place? Young people have always rebelled, but is it all getting increasingly violent? Or is the whole idea that teenagers are 'out of control' a product of media hype?
Ch Supt Jack Russell said: "I called a meeting because of serious concerns I had regarding possible trouble between rival groups who may attend the carnival.
"I believe that some groups who have been involved in the recent spate of firearms incidents could use the event to continue their disagreements.
"I want the carnival to go ahead because it wouldn't be reasonable or fair to cancel an event which not only celebrates the history of the West Indian culture but also brings together many other diverse communities in our city."
About 12,000 people are expected to attend the event.
Ch4 Opinion based
A teenager was killed in a gang-related shooting a few streets from where I live in East London. As the police cordoned off the crime scene and the TV cameras arrived, I began to wonder what separates our lives so much that while some of us can look forward to a bright future full of opportunity, others end up involved in guns, drugs and crime before they have a driving licence. In Britain, does your postcode determine your future or are teens in poorer areas just easy targets to blame? Are schools failing to inspire teens to chose another route? Why are gangs, so-called ASBO kids and 'hoodies' all so attractive to frustrated and disillusioned teens in the first place? Young people have always rebelled, but is it all getting increasingly violent? Or is the whole idea that teenagers are 'out of control' a product of media hype?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)