Introduction
New to this year (2014), Benefits Street is a documentary broadcasted on Channel 4 which focuses on the reality of life on benefits, showing some of Britain's benefit-dependent streets where characters invite the cameras to learn about their life. Although this programme's debut has been a huge success and received the highest number of views compared to any programme on Channel 4, the programme has also been heavily criticised as the show generally sends a message that all people who claim benefits are the 'same' or follow a similar arguably 'negative' portrayal of life shown in the series.
Why is it so controversial?
 |
| 'White Dee', a main character on the series |
As you watch the programme, it is almost immediately clear as to why this programme has sparked several debates. The main issue is the questioning of the honesty of the programme - is everything we see actually true, or has it been exaggerated for viewer's entertainment?
After researching the programme, I found an article which states that some actions within the programme have been purely set up for entertainment. For example, the programme showed that the streets were busy with people at night which has been criticised and 'put on' as some residents claim to say that "the programme showed lots of people spilling out onto the streets at night, but its nothing like that". Not only this, but some characters within the show have apparently been given cigarettes and 'tinnies' from the film-makers (say nearby residents) - to show as if the characters are always found smoking or drinking alcohol.
As well as this, the programme was also criticised for not showing as many good points of the streets, which of course makes sense as it contradicts with the general tone of the series. For example, there was apparently a lot of filming on the gardens of people's homes on the streets which were being regenerated, however this wasn't aired on any of the programmes.
Which therefore in general, you can see how some viewers may complain about the programme as it questions whether it is real or constructed realism. Additionally, the programme can be argued to be very stereotypical and targeted - of course not everyone who is on benefits follows the lifestyles of some characters shown within the programme.
Has the series had a direct effect on the targeted areas themselves?
Despite the criticism, you can argue that the series itself has generally helped those portrayed in the programme, as well as the local area.
Of course, because of the raising awareness of the programme, the characters and the area itself has shown a significant improvement. People have visited the streets to meet and greet some of the characters which too now have a form of reliable income. For example, White Dee has written in a couple of magazine articles as well as appearing in other TV shows. More importantly, this challenges the programme title itself as the form of income means that characters like White Dee won't even have to get benefits due to the source of income.
The local area itself has generally improved. The gardens received a £20,000 investment from different investors so that the area can try to win the 'Britain in Bloom' competition - a competition focusing on improving areas and its natural beauty.
Additionally, the local government has also generally improved. The programme showed the amount of rubbish and litter left on the streets, and bin bags being unattended to because the council refused tot ale them as gangs would scavenge through the bags looking for metal. This too has now been improved and is being maintained efficiently, making sure that the streets are litter-free and clean.
Below is an article based on the controversy yet success of the programme:
Benefits Street Daily Mail Article
Conclusion
Although this series challenges the conventions of a documentary in terms of realism and honesty, you can still argue that the programme doesn't entirely criticise some of Birmingham's roughest streets and those on poverty. Instead, the programme often shows characters who are inspiring and have become successful themselves. It is clear that the programme itself has generally improved the area however provides a clear example of how some documentaries often twist the truth purely for entertainment values - showing how constructed realism is challenging the documentary genre itself.
0 comments:
Post a Comment