Clay mentions the S.F. Chronicle’s decision to bar two women who’ve wedded from covering the same-sex marriage issue.
Seems the Chron is sensitive to the charge that married gay couples have a conflict of interest if they cover the issue. But aren’t we always asking blacks to cover the “race relations” beat? Would we hesitate to send the daughter of a migrant worker to cover a farmworkers’ strike?
Seems to me the Chron talked itself into some pre-emptive fanny covering here. Shielding yourself from potential criticism is not exactly the bravest stand available, particularly when it deprives you of using people on your staff who have direct knowledge of the issues at hand.
I’d be like my boss saying, “sorry, Tom, you can’t write a story about blogging … you’re too close to the issue.” I would argue my closeness is precisely the reason why I should write such an article. (Note: this has never happened because none of my bosses reads my blog, as far as I can tell. For safety’s sake, though, I pretend they do.)
It’s not exactly an endorsement of the paper’s editorial acumen for the executive editor to essentially throw up his hands and say, “Sorry, we have no editors on staff capable of correcting biased reportage.”