One-man shop covering your own kid

These are all great points, hack.

As a columnist myself, I would actually embrace the challenge of writing such a piece. But in our case, I think it would be better served to have the managing editor, who occasionally writes a sort of ombudsman-like column explaining our coverage decisions, to do it. That perhaps removes some layer of conflict of interest (me writing about me and my kid in a column about me writing about my kid. Uhh, wait, where was I ...).

I still believe that I'd like to attempt it without the pre-emptive full disclosure, and let my established credibility in the community speak for itself. Based on newinthefield's original premise, the child will likely be well-known by everyone already, anyway, so the question of "hiding something" probably won't be applicable. But in a broader sense, transparency is always a good idea.

 

I never thought of the column like the way you outlined it here. If the paper would decide to go that route, it would probably make more sense for a ME or publisher to go through with it, as opposed to me.

But as I said, this is at least 15 years down the road and if I stay at the same job. I just was thinking about these types of issues the other day because I saw our publisher's picture on the front page from a couple years ago after he won a citizenship award.

 

FIFTEEN years from now? And you're thinking you'll stay in the same job?

The newspaper business is going to be an awful lot different, if not totally extinct, in 15 years.

 

If you handle it in a professional manner, then it shouldn't be a problem. Our SE had four sons who all were three-sport athletes in high school (they've all since graduated). He covered them all, and wasn't biased. He covered his son's teams and school like he would cover any other team and school. He was a professional about it.

 

I was raised to believe it's never too early to consider obstacles that may come up in the future in everything I do. I'm not saying this is going to happen to me, but I don't see any reason not to start thinking about it, just in case it does happen at this job, or a different job.

 

Fifteen years from now?!?!?! Oy gevalt.

There's planning ahead, and then there's planning ahead. Why don't we readdress this question in, say, 13 years? Let's see if (A) you're still in the business, (B) you're still at that paper, and/or (C) the paper's still in business.

The publisher's picture on the front page of the paper is an entirely different ball of wax. The publisher is also a community business leader. There's no equivocating covering spot news of a publisher getting a local award and a sports writer covering his own kid. None. Absolutely none.

 

I'm not saying they are the same. That's just what got me to think about the issue.

And just because this is deep in the future for me, that doesn't change the topic or the question as it stands right now. This forum is for "journalism topics" and this is a journalism topic no matter what way you look at it, right?

 

We joke that the three most common reasons people say they still read the paper is because they want to know:
1) Did the Red Necks win?
2) Who got married?
3) Who died?

 

Sigh. Welcome to the board.

 

Full disclosure: I've been in this business for 25 years and harbor no delusions that newinthefield's original premise will actually occur, as much as -- for newinthefield's sake -- I hope that it does. All of my previous comments were based on that premise. Just wanted to make sure that that was out there.

 

Sad. I had really enjoyed and valued your opinion on this issue.

But sorry I'm not veteran enough to discuss journalism topics with the rest of you.

 

Don't be discouraged from posting on this board. You started an interesting, relevant discussion. Hack did say "Welcome", after all.