I couldn’t resist it. The new Media Studies is Shit 2.o
I learned recently that my friend Nigel Rogers had died. Readers of this blog (and others) will know him better as ‘Charlie McMenamin’. He contributed to the comments here regularly. In fact nobody has commented more.
I first met Nigel on the old Red Pepper forum where I made my first tentative steps into the world of internet forums and blogs. I liked Nigel immediately. His contributions were sharp, intelligent and good humoured,
He visited Belfast a few years ago and we arranged to meet in Crown Bar for the first time. I remember wondering if the transition from internet acquaintance to face-to-face meeting would make for an awkward encounter. But not at all. We simply picked up where we’d left off on the internet. We talked about politics, a lot; education policy, in particular; but family and football also. Nigel talked with enthusiasm, insight and wit about all these things.
We met up on an number of other occasions in London when we drank liberally and put the world to rights. Nigel was wise and skeptical. I have a tendency to be naive and rash, so I always benefited from Nigel’s good counsel on a range of issues. There are few people whose political judgement I trust like I trusted Nigel’s.
I miss him.
Nigel is given a much more fulsome obituary in the Guardian which gives a sense of his considerable talents and political commitment.
Nigel actually encouraged me to start this blog. It wouldn’t have occurred to me to begin blogging if he hadn’t mentioned it. So in a way it is perhaps fitting that this should be the last post on Media Studies is Shit. I’ve been an infrequent blogger for a while now and its time to move on. I’ll keep an eye on the comments from time to time.
Thanks to everyone who contributed over the years. Take care and best wishes.
It would flatter me to say that I had a layman’s grasp of economics, so what follows is a genuine inquiry. Where does the money go?
Let me elaborate.
The MTV Europe Music Awards, hosted by Belfast in 2011, are reported to have generated approximately £22m for the region – £25 for every £1 of public money spent on the event. Meanwhile, the filming of Home Box Office’s (HBO) Game of Thrones in Northern Ireland is estimated to have pumped £65m into the local economy, a substantial return on the £6.05m Northern Ireland Screen Fund (supported by Invest NI) paid in grants to HBO to help with the costs of the first two series.
Yesterday we learnt that the G8 summit is estimated to bring £40m into the region’s economy.
Add all that up and you have a total of £130m. Where does it go? Does a large chunk of it end up in the pockets of corporations like the Hastings Hotel Group, which according to its 2012 accounts has more than tripled its profits?
Hastings controls six hotels in Northern Ireland, including the Europa and Culloden. How much of its profits went on local wages? How much of that does Hastings spend on local produce? Is there anyway of knowing?
According to the BBC, Hasting’s shareholders received a dividend in 2012 of £368,000 up from £276,000 in 2011. Are we giving grants to big corporations so that the shareholders of large companies can enjoy a pay day?
I wonder how much of the money actually finds its way to working class areas were work is scarce, wages are low and welfare is being cut?
Given that we know that wealth does not trickle down – a notion categorically discredited by the fact that inequality has grown in recent decades – what is the mechanism by which the dividend being enjoyed by some in Northern Ireland can be distributed to the many, and in particular those in most need? That is a pressing question in Northern Ireland given its recent history of bloody sectarian violence and the potential for conflict to be exacerbated by depravation. As Matt Baggott, Northern Ireland’s Chief Constable, argues in an interview published in today’s Independent: “We need a lot more focused work in those difficult disadvantaged neighbourhoods where paramilitarism has its roots, to try and improve the life particularly of young people, and deal with the angst felt by working class Protestants and republicans. That has yet to happen.”
So where does the money go and how do we find out?
If you tend to think of the creative industries as having a homogenising effect on a city, you might want to think again. Angela McRobbie has outlined a set of characteristics that distinguish the urban cultural industries of London, Berlin and Glasgow, and in so doing encourages us to appreciate the specificity of these industries. London, she describes as aggressive, competitive and hierarchical. Berlin as open, vibrant and critically engaged. Glasgow as having a strong working class ethos, political consciousness and, on occasions, anti-commercial in its approach. These of course are generalisations but they got me thinking: what is the potential character of Belfast as a centre for urban cultural industry?
In the lecture (below) McRobbie references Richard Florida’s outline of the the desirable criteria for the development of a successful creative sector – talent, technology and tolerance. Surely Belfast isn’t short of talent, and technology isn’t beyond the city’s reach but can it boast an atmosphere of tolerance? By tolerance, McRobbie points out, Florida is referring to a strong liberal civic culture that provides a context for diverse lifestyles. By any measure Belfast fails the tolerance test. It has shown that it can attract media corporations that want to use Northern Ireland as a location but whether it can appeal to Florida’s ‘creative class’ in the long term and encourage them to settle in such an illiberal part of the world, is a moot point.
Anyway, you can listen to Angela McRobbie’s lecture in full below. Her main theme is to think through the role young creative graduates play in producing employment in this post-industrial era when work is scarce. Highlighting the importance of subcultural entrepreneurs who grew out of the post-punk, DIY culture of the late 1970s and early 1980s, McRobbie argues that this generation developed a homegrown labour market through creative enterprises such as music and fashion as a response to the high unemployment at that time. Despite its vibrancy and talent, the producers of this subcultural economy couldn’t access sufficient capital and their incomes were paltry. As a consequence they were ripe for exploitation by the corporate world. Eventually the specialist talent of these ‘urban cottage industries’ gave way (or transmorgrified into) a second wave of cultural ‘multi-taskers’. McRobbie sees the ‘creatives’ that graduated into this new environment as being required to be mobile and networked, seeking employment in an informalised labour market. This has lead, she argues, to the crystalisation of new forms of exclusion as there is no protection against nepotism and corruption, and this in turn has given rise to a new urban hierarchy, while depoliticising work.
So our homework for this week is to discuss how we might re-politicise work for those chasing positions in the creative industries.