Problems at Patch.com

Oh dear.

 

The team said the open bar at the Patch meeting was great.

 

To be fair, one of the Patch sites in my area is publishing game stories written on the local high school hockey team ... by the hockey team's star senior/defender.

Good thing there's no such thing as a conflict of interest.

 

David Cone while pitching for the Mets did a story for a NYC tabloid on an NLCS game against the Dodgers in 1988. Don't remember the specifics, but from what I recall Cone did a dumb story that gave the Dodgers tons of locker room material. Cone had been sports editor at his high school paper in Kansas for its worth, and may have even won some kind of award. The LA Times did a great feature about his sports writing background advancing that playoff series. I think player-generated content beats user-generated content, and as long as its clearly identified as such, could be interesting as an occasional piece. Beats writing about second graders.

 

Beyond the obvious silliness os covering second graders, there's some ethical issues with one of the other second grade pieces listing names and identifying photos of everyone on the team. Any local child molester now has names, pictures, and knows where to find kids in his area (not to mention deranged spouses who aren't supposed to know where there kids are). Nice, Patch...

 

The deranged spouse thing I could *maybe* see, but it's the parent's job to let the coach know so he can let the reporter know.

But the pedophile thing? Seriously? Do I have to spell out how ridiculous that complaint is.

 

Yeah, but the problem is 1.) It's not identified as such. The player's name is listed for the byline and that's the only indication and 2.) It's put up like it's coverage of the team from a third-party. The writer has a slew of game stories on the team and, from what I can tell, is the only person "covering" the team.

I have no problem with an athlete contributing something to a site like Patch but "covering" the team? Really? Is that the future?

I can see it now. The AP pays Bart Scott to cover the Jets in the AFC championship game next season and then wonders why the Jets received such positive coverage in the story despite losing 31-3.

 

That's just really dumb but it's effing Patch so I probably shouldn't be surprised.

There's no reasonable expectation that a second grade coach would be talking to a reporter or that their kid would be in the news, and the second graders would never be in the news if not for some half-baked patch experiment. I was made aware of the potential pedophile scenario by a city editor I respect. Improbable? OK. But not ridiculous when you consider the risk.

 

I guess I do have to spell it out.

So ridiculously improbable as to be ridiculous to consider it.

If we are talking about the risk of a child being assaulted by a pedophile, here's a list of things that are many orders of magnitude more dangerous than having their names on a website or newspaper:

1) Letting them play sports with adult supervision
2) Letting them be supervised by adults in any other situation
3) Sending them to school
4) Taking them outside your house at any point in the day
5) Leaving them alone with your spouse

The pedophile-mania that has swept this country is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, there are pedophiles out there looking to do things with little kids that should get them shot.

Let's, for a moment, ignore all the data that says those pedophiles will almost always gravitate to positions where they have some authority over children, and then target one of those children (teachers, priests, coaches, babysitters, family members watching kids, etc.).

So let's pretend that there are pedophiles out there looking to snatch a random kid to assault, and that there are enough of them to make this risk worth worrying about.

It's still virtually impossible to imagine that they need a newspaper clipping with a child's name in order to select a target. They could snatch one off the street, they could snatch one from a playground, they could snatch one while their parents' back is turned walking down the street. They could break into any random house and kidnap a kid. But no, they are going to read a newspaper clipping and plot an elaborate scheme to raid the second-grade basketball team practice because they now know that there's a Jimmy on the team and have a picture of him.

Re-fucking-diculous. All you have to do is say the word "pedophile" and otherwise rational adults crap their brains out their ass and lose all sense of rationality.

 

The risks you mention are unavoidable risks. The avoidable ones might seem ridiculous to you, but why create them if you don't have to?

 

Because that standard is so unevenly applies as to be complete horsehockey. You can literally come up with a scenario in which any activity involving children involves some sort of risk, and then use the "That risk is avoidable, so why do it?" line.

This has nothing to do with avoiding risk. There is no risk involved here worth considering. It's about giving in to mindless fear and checking your brain at the door.

 

Agree with Rick. Frankly, there are plenty of much-more intrusive and far more sickening ways that a pedophile can get close to a kid than a newspaper or Patch article. Besides, where do you draw the line? Should we start doing background checks for anyone who buys a ticket to a high school basketball game? Or stop taking photos at a freshman game? Those kids are just 13 to 16, after all.