Our recent post citing a babble.com item about Jessica Springsteen and her famous dad drew a lot of interest — including this response from Friend of Blogness Maria on our Facebook page:Can I just say that I find this a little silly? Surely this wasn’t posted because Jessica Springsteen is a promising equestrian, but because this promising equestrian is “the daughter of.”
If Bruce Springsteen is on stage, sure: all bets are off. Post about HIS career all you like. But when he’s off stage: let not only him enjoy his free time, but above all: let his kids have him all to themselves.
Once you start a Blogness on the Edge of Equestrian: fine. But that’s not what this Blogness is about, is it?
It’s a great response, and speaks to something I’ve grappled with since I started this blog — when is it appropriate to veer from the professional into the personal when it comes to Springsteen coverage? His wife’s in the band, of course, but should kids be off limits? How about coverage of personal situations like Springsteen’s mention in a New Jersey woman’s divorce suit last year?
Sometimes (as in the case of the divorce story) it’s almost impossible to ignore, even if it’s just to note the coverage stories like that get around the Web. (A Springsteen affair accusation will always get more press than an album rumor — so much for the biased liberal media!) Other times, when it involves family vacation pictures or other personal situations, I tend to feel a little stalkerish. (Full disclosure: Posts about Evan, Sam and Jessica Springsteen get TONS of traffic. Hmm … That probably makes it even more stalkerish.)
The general guidelines I’ve set up are, if the people know they’re being filmed and seem to be happy about it (or are on stage or a similar public setting, obviously), I might make a mention; if it looks like it was shot surreptitiously or is invasive, no way. But is that the way to go? Tell me in the comments and take the poll below.