The very first
episode gave us a shocking insight into how ‘the other half live’, and has
left most of the nation gripped. I’m
referring to the Channel 4 TV series, “Benefits Street”.
The documentary
series about the residents of deprived James Turner Street in Birmingham has
prompted almost 300 complaints to Television Standards Agency, Ofcom and more
then 100 to Channel 4 themselves.
Many concerns
over the negative portrayal of benefits claims and criminal activity are among
the more serious issues complained about. References to drug and alcohol usage
as well as watching two men removing alarm tags from stolen items of clothing
can be considered to encourage younger viewers of the programme. Is it
acceptable for the younger generation of this country to witness this sort of
immoral behaviour?
The programme also gave a very sorrowful
vision into the struggle that newer residents on the street faced. The new
influx of Romanians to James Turner Street wasn’t very warm and pleasant, and
it gave a very sad but realist perception of what life is like since coming to
the UK and the struggles they are facing. It could be argued that highlighting
the struggles faced by newer international residents could insight more hate
campaigns and anger surrounding their presence.
Ofcom's regulations state "material
likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder
must not be included in television or radio services".
Channel 4 have
stated the programme is “purely observational captivity” and that it is not
designed to encourage or condone this type of behaviour, but it still poses the
question, that if it is broadcast on national television, is it acceptable?
This is another example of Channel 4 creating a controversial programme in order to increase viewers and cause an uproar. I don't agree with a lot of the programmes which are shown on channel 4 but I actually do think this particular one does hold some purpose.
ReplyDeleteIt is important to know "how the other half live" and how the tax money is being distributed across the country. The only issue I do have is the fact that some viewers see the residents on James Turner Street and then believe that every other person across the country who is claiming benefits are of the same ilk. This particular street is obviously an extreme example, something which was quite clearly stated at the beginning of the first episode, and does not provide a fair representation of everyone in the UK claiming benefits. There are many who would love to be working but quite simply cannot find a job. It is a shame for the same cannot be said for the majority who sit on James Turner Street.
I don't think the programme actually painted the Romanian immigrants in a bad light. It showed their hard working nature as opposed to the lazy, ignorant Brits and also highlighted the increasing issue of slave labour. For those who are complaining that the reference to drugs, alcohol and shop lifting could provide encouragement for younger viewers to engage in similar activity, I would argue the contrary. For those youngsters who are actually up late enough to watch this programme, surely it should provide them with the motivation to work harder at school to ensure they do not end up in a remotely similar situation. With regards to the complaints, nobody is forced to watch, there are other channels and if it is that offensive to certain viewers then I would advise them to switch the television off. For the rest of us, I think it provides an invaluable insight into how people who are less fortunate live in our country and it certainly makes for interesting viewing.
Thank you for taking the time to respond Harry. I completely agree with your comments about it being a poor representation of people across the UK who claim benefits, and it can pain a minority in a negative light.
DeleteAlthough you are correct in stating that nobody is forced to watch programmes that reference drug and alcohol abuse, and given the fact that Channel 4 have stated that the documentary is purely observational material, do you think it is acceptable for young people to have this image blasted on their screens? We live in a society where copy-cat actions do take place (London Riots for example), and so should we not exercise more caution when putting these sorts of images on the television?
The issue here is not in the hands of the producer or directors, it is a fault in what the viewer chooses to see and how they respond to the scenes. Yes, it could be inferred that seeing these things may "incite the commission of crime or lead to disorder", however, that is a response which is not actively being elicited by the programme-makers. The viewer should not seek to copy crimes, but should instead be thinking about the underlying reasons and causes for why people must steal to supplement their benefits in order to survive and why people likely abuse drink and drugs to escape the harsh realities of life.
ReplyDeleteIt seems popular nowadays to criticise benefit-claimants and make assumptions about them. The viewer is quick to make judgements based on preconceptions about why people are on benefits. The idea, promoted throughout the media, of people on benefits as scroungers and ne'er-do-wells has sought to promote such a response. Surely complaints should be directed at those who demonize such people, rather than the actions of those struggling to survive on the meagre welfare payments they receive. Instead, there appears to be a movement to misconstrue the message behind the program and an unwillingness to empathise and sympathise with those who are worst off.
Liam, I think you have a point here, with regard to the fact that it is the media (particularly the tabloid press) who promote these misconceptions. They take a minority representation and promote it as the norm. There are extremes of behaviour in all areas of life - religion, politics, police, schools, work, out of work - the majority of people are decent human beings who just want the best for their families but one bad example and the media will tar the whole sector with the same brush. It's exploitative, sensationalist, cheap journalism! And unfortunately too many people seem keen to support it by buying it, which encourages the television media to follow suit!
DeleteD
As with any 'reality'-type programme, what is actually broadcast is down to how the producers choose to edit it. Unless the cameras run and broadcast 24/7 this is inevitable. For me, the fact that the residents themselves are unhappy with the aired programmes, I suspect that the filming has probably been edited to cause the most dramatic effect. I think this is very irresponsible journalism, created to provoke reaction, attention, and negative feeling. I know that television viewers want to be entertained but when something is presented as a 'reality' I think there should be some kind of limit to the editing so as not to distort the truth.
ReplyDeleteD