An intriguing article in today’s Meeedja Guardian by Simon Marquis, warning against government interference in the creative industries (illustrated, inexplicably, in the print edition, by the misogynistic Gail Porter/Houses of Parliament/FHM image). It is a fair point, but he then goes on to make what I think may be contradictory statements:
The idea that central government has a role in nurturing creative talent will be received with some puzzlement by many in these sectors. Advertising, for example, has flourished, by and large, in spite of government attention rather than because of it. It has been in some ways the model of a self-regulating, free-market sector where a sense of public responsibility endures.”
And then:
…the government is one of the three largest advertisers in the UK, harnessing as it does the creative talents of the ad industry on its behalf.”
Tough to see, I would say, how you can claim that one of your three biggest customers has had nothing to do with your continued success. I mean, if the government suddenly stopped paying “attention” to the advertising industry, would it flourish “in spite” of that indifference?
Marquis makes a vigorous defence of an unregulated market, but falls into the trap of assuming that government can only take any credit for direct investment. Speaking about succesful ad agencies, he writes:
It is hard to see how government can make any kind of difference to people like them and yet the report claims that “most members of the creative and cultural industries have been helped in some way by public support and investment”.
Ummm, did none of them go to a massively state-subsidised university?
