2008/12/2 Brian J Goggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:51:09 +0000, "Steve Haywood" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
It is very dangerous to blur the fine dividing line a journalist has to walk between general self interest and specific self interest. Believe me, open up a crack here and it will provide cover for any amount of dishonest charlatans out to make a quick buck. Yes, arguments I make for the continuation of subsidized boating may have the effect of benefiting me personally. But they are not intended as such and there is a world of moral difference between this and me writing something for the very reason that I know or expect or hope I will make me money out of it. The law recognises as much in the way journalists are regulated. I am, for instance, allowed to recommend shares. But I am not allowed to benefit from share recommendations and if I do I will go to prison. Whether I genuinely believe the shares to be good or not is neither here nor there. The law, I grant you, is to protect the City more than to ensure confidence in journalism. Even so the principle from the point of view of a journalist is that if one of our number is seen to benefit directly from what s/he writes then all journalists will not be believed because people cannot be certain of our motivation. Throughout my professional life I have at some personal cost to myself confronted the powerful forces of the law, government and crime. Close personal colleagues have died doing the same thing as all over the globe journalists are dying regularly in the course of their work. You are very aware of this in Ireland. Forgive me under these circumstances for not taking Adam Smith particularly seriously. I accept your point about accepted modes of behaviour. Steve [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
