Read other letters about this article

• Tuesday, September 9, 2008 07:50 AM

  Professionalism? ¡Ya basta!

  I find no other claim quite so vexing. Professionalism (outside of professional sports) is not defined by getting paid to do what you're doing. Professionalism is defined by having a code which arbitrates what happens when the interests of the professional collide with the interests of the client. That code can be either internal (which is preferred), or external (which is better than nothing), but it exists. It's knowing that doing things right, and doing the right thing doesn't always produce coincident outcomes. Professionalism can parallel education and occupation, but it isn't obliged to. I've known a number of folks with a GED performing menial tasks who have earned the designation of professional, as compared to our press which had it conferred upon them. Would that they could be professional. From the press, I've seen very little evidence of a functional code such as I've described.

  Further, it should be observed that this notion of self-interest produces desirable outcomes when specific assumptions are made. For Adam Smith, those assumptions were defined by conditions of competition which no longer exist for our corporate media. And, it could be noted that, in addition to Wealth of Nations, he wrote A Theory of Moral Sentiments which preceded it.

  FWIW, Ezra Klein caught that exchange yesterday, as well. Link at sig. And, in trying to explain the meta, goes ... well ... meta.

  Frankly, I think Atrios has summed it up succinctly (as he is wont to do), and well. High priests and Latin, indeed.

  —bystander Read bystander's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel