Brown (1998) argues that the only hard-core truth there is that "we could born, we grow older, and we perish. " The categories that show up between whenever we are delivered then grow old and then expire for example childhood, adolescence, adult and older are socially created. One of the latest categories created is that of 'youth'. Oxforddictionaires. com (2013) identifies the word 'children' as "the period between years as a child and adult age group". However there is no standardised definition of 'children', as the word 'young ones' is subject to cultural, communal and politics changes. Therefore many theorists claim that 'young ones' is a interpersonal construction (and can differ between cultures). Social development is defined as something that is established by society, constructed from communal meanings and definitions. In the 21st century we have been consider to be in an time of information because we are exposed to numerous types of press such as TV, music and printed types. For this reason its argued that the mass media has an impact how we as a world view junior and youth civilizations The purpose of this article is to go over to what scope the media influences views on junior and youngsters subcultures.
It is argued that 'children' is socially made this is through the fact that there are numerous classifications of what a 'youth' is, and when someone makes the changeover into leaving youth behind and becoming a 'youngsters'. The only regular feature is that it's supposedly the culture and society that tells the average person when they are no more a child and they are now a children or an adult. For example within different countries there will vary age meanings for a youth criminal. Inside Great britain and Wales this is 10-17 years old (Crime disorder Act, 1998). As it is believed that from age 18 you are considered an adult within many ethnicities and societies surrounding the world. This idea of 18 being the age a person becomes a grown-up is based upon the theory that now you can legitimately vote, get wedded and take part in a contract to mention some characteristics that appear universal around european world specifically within Europe and USA. So as stated the european culture and population has classified an individual becomes an adult at 18. However throughout different ethnicities the stages between years as a child and adulthood have constantly been changing, adapting and some could say becoming very blurred. Due to this childhood differs between different ethnicities so that it is complicated to understand where childhood halts so an individual may become this notion of your 'youngsters'.
Nevertheless although a person's culture plays a huge part in the classification of 'youth' the press is the largest contributor and influencer on society's meaning and views of 'children' and 'youngsters subcultures. This is as the mass media are constantly bombarding the general public with experiences about 'youth's. These have a tendency to portray the 'youths' and the subcultures fastened in a negative light. Even when the advertising is not portraying youths in a negative manner that are flooding the press with their definition of what it is and means to be a 'junior'. With these ideas constantly being exhibited they can create a discourse of what 'children' is. This therefore shows the power and influence the mass media can have on societies views towards 'youngsters' and 'junior subcultures.
Another manor, where the media considerably influences society's views on junior and children subculture, is through the creation of moral panics. Cohen (2002) identifies a moral anxiety as "(a) condition, event, person or group of folks that emerges to become thought as a threat to societal values and interests". A far more standardised explanation is that of Turner, Abercrombie and Hill (1988). They define a moral anxiety as "an overreaction of the mass media, authorities and neighborhood market leaders to delinquent offences which are actually relatively trivial, both in terms of the nature of the offence and the quantity of people involved'. A recently available exemplory case of the impact the marketing can have is that of the 'Hoodie' subculture/moral-panic they created. A method of dress worn by teenagers but not limited to, but when it was associated with deviant behaviour of people beyond the medias dictated image of how a person should whether it be start to generate a stress. It officially became a moral anxiety after the media heard that style of dress have been forbidden from shopping centres including the Bluewater retail park in Kent (BBC Information, 2005), and had created a deviance amplification spiral scheduled to all or any the opinions on offer and being many multimedia outlets main tale. This shows the impact the media has on societal views of youth and junior subcultures as the media created a stress over a method of dress that is worn for decades by monks and featured in hip-hop music videos without dependence on panic or to negative portray those who are not performing within society's norms.
Nevertheless all though the media is a primary contributor and influencer to content about or on 'children' and 'youth ethnicities it still fails to create one widespread definition or view of the phenomena determined as youth. This may be because as Buckingham (2000) says during the last few decades "the distinctions between children and other categories -'children' or 'parents' have become difficult to sustain".
The media plays a part in the socialisation of people across a wide selection of areas (Hutson et al, 1992). Multimedia, combined with the other real estate agents of socialisation attempt to create an image in which to mould children into. However youth cultures are manufactured out of rebellion to the mould and from just not installing the societies place norms of how a person should be. Therefore, specific differences just a bit minimises the quantity of grip the mass media is wearing influencing society. That is as an individual has the ability and right to classify and establish themselves at all they see fit. Therefore even if the marketing tells culture to define a 'youngsters' as someone aged 13-25, the average person doesn't have to accept and make reference to themselves as that classification.
In conclusion this can be a known/generalised theory among societies that folks are influenced with what they see. The multimedia is the primary source of what people see, which means media influences societal views considerably. Whether it's on the topic of 'young ones' and 'junior cultures' from what political party a person should support. This is reported to be down to the theory the technology and the marketing are making a 'New Years' where we are now all living in. However the multimedia is just one element in which can effect societal views, culture and backdrop can also play its part when you are a strong influence on a person so that folks don't just have the multimedia as a source to refer to. Also individual differences can be an influencer, although this is not as big a contributor as the mass media or culture and history. Individual distinctions show society you do not have to fit the mould that is constantly being shown to the world about 'youths' and 'children culture'. Nevertheless it is the marketing that is the primary influencer probably as it is the main method of growing a note to society in all forms.