Monday 22 June 2015

Introduction to the Critical Investigation

Are contemporary documentaries, like C4's 'Benefits Street', providing a public service, or simply reinforcing negative stereotypes to generate a larger audience?



In my opinion, I think that contemporary documentaries, like C4's 'Benefits Street' mainly reinforce negative stereotypes to generate a larger audience. They give the audience what they want to hear or are used to hearing through these stereotypes and use comedy as a cover up. 

For example, one of the main negative stereotypes reinforced is immigrants. In Britain, immigration is a problem especially for the white English people as some believe that immigrants are taking away their jobs. In Benefits Street, immigrants are often ridiculed or the point about them stealing jobs is portrayed in one way or another. Since it is a dominant representation of immigrants, not much is said about the way immigrants are represented. Also it is the preferred reading (hall) as the audience would find it funny. It is clear that Benefits Street is reinforcing a negative stereotype here, because the truth is that immigrants brought much more money through taxes into the country than the rest of the country.

It is also to note that since the media is controlled by people in power, it is common for them to stereotype those less in power (Dyer). In a sense, the hypodermic needle theory comes into place here because the media inject these ideas of stereotypes into the minds of the audience so as to make it normal for them to stereotype immigrants in such a way. They slowly bring moral panic (cohen) into this because they bring out the idea that immigrants, who don't even know English properly, are taking over jobs and gaining more money than other people.  

All of these techniques are used to generate a larger audience because Benefits Street use comedy to draw more people into the programme but also allow those who agree with the stereotypes to be drawn to the show also.

No comments:

Post a Comment