A negative representation is better than no representation at all

The word representation can be defined as a description or portrayal of someone or something in a particular way or as being of a certain nature. Teenagers especially have been stereotyped negatively ever since the ‘Mods and ‘Rockers’ event occurred. Nothing much has changed since then as teens are still being represented as the feral youths that were represented back then. Some may argue that any representation is better than nothing at all as teens are being shown in the media; however a majority of that coverage seems to be negative publicity, therefore giving a general negative representation, in this essay I shall sum up both the pros and cons of a negative representation and shall assess which is better.

Some may disagree with the statement as teenagers for example would argue that no representation at all would mean that there would be less of a negative stereotype, therefore meaning that there would be less of a stigma attached to teens. The media have played a big part in the negative representations of teens For example this statement can be linked to current examples such as the London Riots has given young teens a negative representation as the mass media have portrayed youths within London to be ‘feral’. This is reinforced by the images portrayed by institutions such as the guardian which have carefully handpicked images of young delinquents committing utilitarian crimes; this is an example of hegemony – the dominance of one social class injecting dominant ideologies into audiences which can also be linked to the theory of hypodermic needle. This has affected many teens within London as it may have led to Howard Becker’s theory of self-fulfilling prophecy, where by the label attached becomes true. Also a theory which can be linked to the negative representations of teens within the media is the dependency theory, this theory talks about how people look to the media for true representations, therefore if a representation is negative then teens would be stereotyped as negative, therefore a negative representation would not be better than no representation in this case.

On the other hand some may agree with the statement as for celebrities a negative representation would benefit them more than no representation at all as a bit bad publicity Is good publicity for celebs as it keeps there name circling around the media, which informs audiences that that person is still around, For example the negative representation of  jimmy savile may not be positive, but it has kept his name circling around the media which may not be good for him but it has made people remember him, therefore for celebrities a negative representation is better than none at all.

Personally I would disagree with the statement as a young teen living in London, this negative representation that surround teens like myself within London is generally negative, having previously been formed by the moral panic that was created by the Mods and Rockers, I think that this negative representation has hindered a lot of the youth within London, especially as the constant negative publicity that has been portrayed across all 3 media platforms, especially print has altered a lot of people views/opinions of teens in general, injecting views that teens are ‘feral’, etc. I therefore believe that no representation is better than a negative one as the constant negative representation that has surrounded teens in society has altered a lot of the choices we as teenagers have made, as they form the opinion that the representation is not going to get better, so why not do as the media portray us out to be (self-fulfilling prophecy).