On 12 Aug 98 at 12:36, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> At 11:47 AM 8/11/98 +0000, Jim Craven wrote:
> >Thanks to Louis for publishing that piece. It reminds me of
> >journalists who scream "But what about the people's right to know?"
> >when someone being questioned refuses to answer. Translation: "But
> >what about MY need for a 'scoop' so that I can get more exposure, so
> >that I can get name recognition and become a Dan Rather so that I can get
> preferred access
>
> -- snip ---
>
> I reply (WS): It is quite obvious that producers of knowledge have personal
> interests in the commodity their produce, as do the producres of, say,
> ic--cream. Noone would hold it against Ben & Jerry if they failed to
> disclose their political views to farmers from whom they buy milk, and who
> migh find such views objectionable. So why there is so much fuss about the
> producers of intellectual commodity?
>
> Knowledge is a commodity as everything else. It is a manufactured product
> that uses data only as raw material. The producer has no specific
> obligation to the source of the raw material, other than those specified by
> law or a contract.
>
> Specifically, public behavior is, by definition, public rather than
> proprietary. If I observe a cop or a fisherman doing what they would be
> ordinarily doing in their everyday life - they have no proprietary rights
> whatsover to how that behavior appears to the outside observers. Since any
> observation is by its very nature selective (i.e. I perceive ceratin
> features as more salient than others and ignore still other features
> altogether) - there is no deception on my part whatsover, if I use my
> observations of others to write a story I like.
>
> Those others may or may not like the story I wrote, just like the dairy
> farmers may or may not like Ben & Jerry's ice cream. In both cases, the
> people who supplied raw material to the manufactured product might complain
> about the 'misuse' of that raw material. They have the right to voice
> their disappointment. But that does not mean that such disappointment
> ought to receive an institutional sanction in the form of professional or
> legal restrictions.
>
> Of course, that would be different if I used deception or false pretenses
> to ask people to behave in a certain way or to obtain information that
> otherwise would not be given to anyone. Or if I used my authority position
> to that end.
>
> Much of the debate about ethics in sociological/anthroplogical research
> originates, in my view, in two misperceptions. First is the misguided
> opinion (aka 'political correctness') that every aspect of human
> interaction can be regulated by some form of formal authority and formal
> rules of behavior in order to prevent potential inequalities or abuses.
> Second is the belief that people own the cultural impressions they give
> off. Both beliefs are, in my view, dove-tailing with the capitalist drive
> toward formalization and marketisation of every form of human interaction.
>
> Oftentimes, the 'ethics' is used as a disguised ad hominem attack in lieu
> of ad rem arguments.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Wojtek Sokolowski
Response:
If I may mix metaphors and analogies, suppose Ben and Jerry were
covertly giving funds to a lobby intent on destroying family farms,
promoting agribusiness or even intent on vertically integrating and
acquiring their input suppliers for 10 cents on the dollar. Would
their "political views" be relevant for the farmers to know then?
I understand your point, but knowledge is and is not "just like any
other commodity". I agree, nothing wrong in wanting to provide a
living for your yourself and/or family--we are all trying to do that
and in the course of doing so, we all make compromises. But the
"mainstream" newsbusiness involves more than simple compromises; it involves
fundamental "Faustian Bargauns". What would happen if some reporter
dared to ask at a Presidential News Conference dealing with honoring
veterans of WWII about Operation Paperclip in which the OSS and later
CIA recruited wanted nazi war criminals, aided their escape from the
hangman, brought them to the U.S., placed them in high-level fronts
like the Assembly of Captured European Nations (ACEN) and assisted
their rise into U.S. politics, intelligence circles and society in
general? Do you think that reporter would work again? I doubt it.
Even if the editor agreed, that reporter would never be called upon
again which means no access, which means no "scoops", which means no
exposure and name recognition or further access for the reporter or
no "ratings", advertising revenues, profits or market share for the
news/profit maximizing entity--if we aggregated and replicated the
effects flowing from the principle.
Just as in the Residential Schools, no written "code of conduct" for
surivival, "success", promotion is required in the media and
academia. The "perrmissible" paradigms, topics, parameters/angles of
analysis, "exposes", journals and other media, etc are well
understood--as are the penalties for not following the "acceptable"
routes; e.g. tenure denial for Sam Bowles and Paul Sweezy at Harvard etc.
So yes knowledge is a commodity, but it can also be a weapon for or
against forces of reaction. Those who sign on to the Faustian
Bargains to go the "permissible" and career-enhancing route are not
simply dealing with another commodity like milk for Ben and Jerry's
ice cream. Knowledge tooled, shaped or withheld for the forces of
reaction has very definite consequences for real people in the real
world. And when those who have signed on to the implict-if not
explicit-- Faustian Bargain to cover only the "permissible" then are
yelling "What about the people's right to know", this is more than
shere hypocrisy; the consequences are far far more disastrous than
the farmers not being informed about Ben and Jerry's personal
political views and agenda.
Jim Craven
James Craven
Dept. of Economics,Clark College
1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. Vancouver, WA. 98663
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tel: (360) 992-2283 Fax: 992-2863
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards Indians; their land and
property shall never be taken from them without their consent."
(Northwest Ordinance, 1787, Ratified by Congress 1789)
"...but this letter being unofficial and private, I may with safety give you a more
extensive view of our policy respecting the Indians, that you may better comprehend
the parts dealt to to you in detail through the official channel, and observing the
system of which they make a part, conduct yourself in unison with it in cases where
you are obliged to act without instruction...When they withdraw themselves to the
culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their
extensive forests, and will be willing to pare them off from time to time in exchange
for necessaries for their farms and families. To promote this disposition to exchange
lands, which they have to spare and we want, for necessaries which we have to spare
and they want,we shall push our trading houses, and be glad to see the good and
influencial individuals among them run in debt, because we observe that when these
debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off
by cession of lands...In this way our settlements will gradually circumscribe and
approach the Indians, and they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens
of the United States, or remove beyond the Mississippi.The former is certainly the
termination of their history most happy for themselves; but, in the whole course
of this, it is essential to cultivate their love. As to their fear, we presume that
our strength and their weakness is now so visible that they must see we have only to
shut our hand to crush them..."
(Classified Letter of President Thomas Jefferson ("libertarian"--for propertied white
people) to William Henry Harrison, Feb. 27, 1803)
*My Employer has no association with My Private and Protected Opinion*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
