There are no limits
Paul Murphy is TD for Dublin South West. TD=Teachta Dála, a member of Dáil Éireann, the lower house of the Oireachtas (the Irish Parliament).
He did this today.
A legislator put a target on a reporter’s child on social media.
Tip Jar
I don’t get it.
Is your point that people angry at McCarthy’s article will decide to assault her child? Why? On the theory that the kid “squealed” on the teacher? That seems pretty strained to me.
If McCarthy has a child in the class, that really seems like something that should have been disclosed in the piece, and therefore fair for a critic to point out.
Assault? No, not particularly, but it puts a spotlight on the child, in the context of an ideology or campaign or political movement that spends most of its energy abusing dissenters. It’s not a “normal” political campaign in that sense.
For the same reason I’m not sure I agree that McCarthy should have disclosed. Normally, yes, but in the context of unrelenting threats and abuse directed at anyone who doesn’t submit, not so much.
So McCarthy should have cited her own 8 or 9 year old child as a source? Why? I wouldn’t have either. She cited parents (plural), so her child (if true) wasn’t the only one who thought to tell their parent(s) about the situation. What is He/him’s motive for pointing out such a thing?
The point is that it could be a conflict of interest. In general reporters should avoid those, and mention them if they can’t avoid.
I don’t think it’s paranoid to suggest that McCarthy might have been more willing to take reports at face value, and not look as hard for contrary evidence and accounts, than a writer who didn’t have a personal involvement.
At a minimum it’s something her readers deserved to know. McCarthy should either have disclosed that she has a child at the school, or passed the story on to another writer who didn’t have a personal tie.
I’m forgetting the details, but a couple of years ago there was a long-form piece about a controversy at some American high school. It came out a week or two after the piece was published that the author and her child personally knew many of the parents and students involved, and it sure looked like that affected the version of facts that were presented.
I’m not saying it’s paranoid. Not at all: I know disclosure is standard, and for good reasons. It’s just that I also think there are risks, and they should be taken into account.
I’m no expert on the specifics of the ethics of journalism (obviously), but I don’t see where the conflict is. It’s not uncommon for reporters to report on things that happen to them or people they know without specifying who they are, unless it’s relevant. Why would the fact that her child was one of many in the class be relevant?
It’s not as if this highly controversial subject can be reported on at all without the appearance of bias.
Not as biased as putting useless pronouns in your twitter bio, but still.