Paging Steven Stills...

After grappling for two weeks on whether to write about the Jon Stewart/Jim Cramer showdown and its ramifications, I decided to pull a Jarom 1:2 on the issue: "For what could I write more than my fathers have written?"

Since I'm more of a sports journalist guy anyway, I found an appealing story nonetheless.

The Washington Post recently hired Chico Harlan to serve as their beat reporter for the Washington Nationals, the still-fresh Major League Baseball team.

Trouble is, he'd rather be writing about something else.

In an interview with Washingtonian magazine, Harlan expressed that he did not see the Nationals beat as his life's calling:

“I don’t like sports—I am embarrassed that I cover them,” Harlan said. “I can’t wait to stop. It is a means to an end and a paycheck.”

Understandably, Nationals fans (though in small supply) expressed their outrage over the fact that the Post would alienate baseball readers with a writer who admittedly hates the game.

But...

Could his refusal to get into the details of the sport itself actually provide more objective coverage? The Post's other baseball writer, Tom Boswell, is notorious for his love/hate relationship with the fledgling Nationals, who have yet to finish over .500 since their move to Washington.

Harlan thinks he can.

“My approach might drive hard-core fans crazy because I might not get inside for that nitty-gritty play-by-play,” he said. “The passion I can drum up is wanting to capture what is unique about each game. I am interested in the characters more than anything.”

Obviously, every reporter will at some point have a beat or do a story outside of their hopes and dreams, but does it hurt one's credibility by making it public?

For me, all journalists ought to follow the mantra of Steven Stills:

"And if you can't be with the one you love, honey, love the one you're with."

Maybe I can snag that Nationals job in a couple years...I'd take it!