On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:51:09 +0000, "Steve Haywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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. No, it isn't. You argue fiercely, here and elsewhere, in support of your personal interest in having your recreational activities subsidised by the taxpayer. I don't disapprove of it, or say that you shouldn't do it; I merely note the fact. I accept your right to do it, but that doesn't affect my perception of it as a self-interested activity. >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. I suggest that "accepted modes of behaviour" act to ban the deprecated activities of the past in order to distract attention from the self-interested activities of the present. It's like banning corruption in politics: arms companies are not supposed to give large wodges of cash to politicians, senior civil servants or senior military officers (well, not to British ones anyway: they can bribe foreigners as much as they like). So a new form of corruption has grown up: if the politician, civil servant or officer pleases the arms companies while in office, he or she will be rewarded with seats on boards some little time after retirement. It's a form of deferred corruption, but it hasn't been banned yet because it accords with "accepted modes of behaviour". I don't recall seeing a declaration in *Canal Boat* to the effect that you would personally benefit from some of the changes for which you argue. Your "accepted modes of behaviour" don't seem to cover the case. But your columns are not, I think, in the least bit dispassionate or objective. Not that I expect them to be so: I expect them to be amusing rants. I have no objection to your promoting your interests in that way. What I dislike is the suggestion that it is in some way different from, or morally superior to, what you perceive Adrian as having done. You promote your interests; Adrian may promote his; when I finish my book [<--- declaration of interest] I'm sure I'll promote mine. >And whatever leap of logic do you jump from jornalistic ethics to >restrictive practices? All codes of ethics are inherently restrictive practices. And many items in codes of ethics seem to be designed to protect the interests of the members of the trades or professions to which they apply. See Adam Smith. bjg
