2008/12/2 Brian J Goggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:10:39 +0000, "Steve Haywood" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I beg to differ. Being a controversialist is one thing. Using what you > write > >to pursue your own financial interests is something entirely different, > >Something which has always been considered improper among journalists. > > Nonsense, and irrelevant. > > First, you yourself use what you write to pursue your own financial > interests if you get paid for writing in *Canal Boat*, if you get paid > for writing books and most of all if the sales of your books benefit > from your branding as a controversialist, a branding that depends on > what you write in magazines and on the interwebnet. > > Second, and more broadly, you seem to be inventing a world of pure > seekers after truth and ignoring the real life of the media in which > journalists must serve the interests of their proprietors --- even if > they have resisted the blandishments of the PR industry. > > Third, I am not aware that Adrian claims to be a journalist and so I > do not know that he is subject to whatever restrictive practices > journalists describe as codes of ethics. > >
Well, nice one, Brian. To sweep all generally accepted definitions of 'interest' under the table as if they didn't exist. Your analogy of me as a writer to my books is like saying I cannot write about BW licensing because I have a boat. THAT is nonsense. Come on! There are accepted modes of behaviour about these things, and though they may not cover corporate self interests about which you and I I'm sure would be in agreement, they neverthess are the best protective methods we have for veniel self interest where people effectively lie to their readship, making it seem as if what they are arging is dispassionate and objective rather than just grubby. And whatever leap of logic do you jump from jornalistic ethics to restrictive practices? Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
