One-man shop covering your own kid

And we wonder why people call us the "toy department."

On a much grander scale, the New York Times had an interesting controversy on its hands a couple years ago when its guy covering the Israel-Palenstinian tension had a son join the Israeli Army. The paper kept him on the beat, and a lot of readers questioned that decision.

 

If your kid's the 12th guy on the bench, or the third-string left guard, I'd think you're OK.

I think the only issue comes about when the kid happens to be fairly good.

Is there a conflict of interest at play if the kid's not a big part of the team? Sure, technically. But when he's doing little to affect the team, it's a much easier issue to deal with.

 

beautiful

obtuse because we understand why it's inexcusable to cover your child?

have a clue, pal

 

I think if you have established yourself as a professional in the community, it won't matter. There will always be the lunatic fringe out there that's looking for bias, real or perceived, but they're such a minority in most cases it's not worth catering to them.

But being a professional is the key. I've been in one place where the sports editor's kid was a starting linebacker on the football team that won a pair of section crowns. I've also been a newsie where our weekend reporter would cover events her children were participating in, or her husband (a pastor) would be involved in. If you're a pro, you can do it. But if you're a homer ...

 

I always thought it would be weird to cover education if your spouse is a teacher in the school system you cover.

 

I'm sure most papers have bigger ethical lapses than a reporter in a one-person sports department covering his kid's team. Fix those and get back to me.

As for ethics, they are nice rules in a perfect world, but too many gray areas for me to start throwing stones at others in this situation.

 

Toy department? Never heard that. At our paper, Sports is known as the reason we all still a product people want.

 

Please.

 

Exactly. That's why I think you're shooting yourself in the foot with a pre-emptive column. Just do the job the way it's supposed to be done, whether you have a kid on the team or not, and nobody has any ammunition. It is possible.

 

Disagree. Short of not covering the team at all, stating any potential conflict of interest -- real or perceived -- up front is the only way to take ammunition away from your detractors. What's worse: admitting a conflict or letting people think you're hiding one?

Depending how it's written, a column is a viable and useful tool for shedding insight into the tough questions we ask ourselves and the tough decisions we make in this business. Again, much depends on (A) the community, (B) the writer's reputation and (C) the writer's ability to convey the important message that he/she will attempt to cover the team as objectively as possible.

It doesn't even have to be an entire column ... it could be part of a notes column. Or it could be something written by the newspaper's top executive elsewhere in the paper if he/she has such a regular vehicle.

If you must cover a family member because there's no other option available, it's your professional obligation as a journalist to disclose any apparent conflict of interest at least once. Get the word out there and you can at least demonstrate you're not hiding anything.

Obviously, it would be better of if you didn't cover a family member, but reality is reality. Make the best of a touchy situation by being forthright about it.

 

And his mom will kick your ass if you don't.

 

I'm only 23 but I think you cover your child like everybody else. You explain to your kid he/she can't get in every week and has to be treated like all other athletes. If your editor wants a feature on him/her, get another reporter to do it from another staff. If you're a one-person staff, the editor can always assign it to another if they have some "free time."