Sir Martin Sorrell called for subsidies for quality journalism recently: see http://tgr.ph/oykvAF & http://on.ft.com/oNaTus. Immersed in public sphere scholarship this summer I noticed that this viewpoint makes him an unlikely if uneasy bedfellow with sociologist Rodney Benson (http://bit.ly/mXyESS).
The former, who runs global advertising agency behemoth WPP, is presumably interested in the potential for aggregating such journalism and generating advertising revenue around it. I imagine he is thinking of the Channel 4 rather than the BBC model in the UK.
The latter is more concerned with the conditions under which an independent public sphere may flourish, with a focus on the US and a conviction, more a legacy of Bourdieu/Durkheim than Habermas/Weber, that the state is the most appropriate guarantor of this independence. Accordingly Benson attaches diversity to his call for quality and asks: “What are the laws and regulations and tax breaks and subsidies – in short the rules of the game guaranteed by the state through democratic political processes – that nudge and prod and encourage journalism to more closely meet ideals of deliberative democracy?”
Despite the different agendas and leaving aside the tricky issue of what exactly constitutes quality and diversity, as an occasional (and I would like to think quality) journalist who doesn’t object to (quality – do your bit too Sir Martin) advertising, I look forward to the time when they find eachother and harness Benson’s ideas to Sorrell’s talent for promotion.