Covering prep sports - with a child on the team

Perhaps his shop is small enough not to warrant serious spelling/grammar handwringing.

 

On the plus side, if you cover your kid's games, you'll probably spell his name right.

 

It seems this thread went off the deep edge there for awhile.

Back to what's important.

Small-town stuff is much different than big-town stuff, so a big-town guy would never understand why it's ok to tolerate this conflict of interest in a small town as long as you are aware of it. Small-town reporting tends to be different from big-town reporting, and once again, the big-town guys won't get that. That's just how it is. And this is coming from someone from who is in his 20s, not some old curmudgeon.

There should be a circulation survey attached. I think the results would show that people from papers with medium-big circulations think this situation is very bad, and that people from papers with small circulations would think it's ok.

 

Although it would be pretty funny if he accidentally wrote a sibling's name as we all from time to time call one kid by another's name. Or maybe he could even write in the dog's name.

 

Us big-city folks just don't understand... Our journalism ethics, like our salsa, is made in New York City.

 

I'm just saying, if you haven't recently worked in a small town on a stint of at least a few years, you'll more than likely think differently than we do. I used to think this was huge no-no, but not so much now that I have worked at my small-town place for a few years. Staff cuts, budget cuts and a large chunk of the readership knowing you make a significant difference in small communities.

 

I understand the point you're making, but it is rationalized garbage. What other ethical standards are you willing to throw out the window because you work in a "small-town" shop, or is this the only one?

 

I've never worked in a small town and have no problem with it. People can think independently of experience.

 

For the record:
1) I was just stating how things may occur in the next few years at my shop.
2) Money is not more important than professionalism, but it's rather easy to be professional and get paid. I can easily write a fair story involving my son's involvement in a sport because my ethics were instilled in me long before I became a reporter. And if I leaned even a bit favorably toward my son, I've got a readership of more than 11,000 who would be quick to call me out on it.
3) Yes, my weekly is a small paper for many of you, but our ethics are just as important. In fact, I would say our feet get held to the fire a lot more than those who work at Big Metro Daily because we actually interact daily with our readership. If a New York Times writer uses Staci instead of Stacie, gets an extremely obscure fact wrong, has the wrong member of a family listed in a not-so-favorable light, or even -- heaven forbid -- makes a grammatical error, it's doubtful he or she will be inundated by phone calls or stopped on the street and corrected or accused of favoring one party over another. For us "small-town" guys, it's a way of life.
Now, does the above mean I relish the thought of one day covering a team on which my son plays? No. I would like to just be a dad and cheer my head off.
But it also means that in a one-man shop there's no such thing as "have the other writer cover it."
And that team with my son? It also involves the sons, grandsons, nephews, friends and neighbors of hundreds of others in the community -- and, yes, that includes advertisers -- who won't look too kindly upon a blurb in Small-Town Weekly saying one of their teams will receive zero coverage for the next four years because the lone sportswriter's son happens to be a player.
But, hey, if some of you out there still think that's an ethical bridge too dangerous to cross, feel free to send me an E-mail. I'll pick one of you, have you move here and let you cover my son's teams. You won't get paid a cent, but think of all the exposure and wealth of ethics you'll get as a writer.

 

You think a reporter at The New York Times faces less scrutiny than a reporter at the Podunk Weekly?

 

I cackled when I read that. Absolutely incredible. Those New York Times guys are so high up in their ivory tower that they are beyond scrutiny. That's some other-dimension ridiculousness.