The story goes on and on about the incredible exploits of Las Vegas native Bryce Harper, a catcher who routinely belts home runs as far as 570 feet and posts seasonal batting averages in the .500 to .600 range.

With the title “Baseball’s Chosen One” splashed across an image of him swinging, Harper was on the cover of this particular issue of SI being touted as the biggest sports prodigy since LeBron James.

There’s no doubt the story, written by the very well respected baseball reporter Tom Verducci, is an accurate tale of this incredible athlete. But Harper is just 16-years old, only recently completing his sophomore year of high school.

Aside from his incredible on-field achievements, the story discusses Harper’s plans to leave high school early and pursue a General Equivalency Diploma (GED) so he can be eligible for next year’s MLB draft. Harper is supported and encouraged by his parents 100%

Professional sports in America have a long and sorted history of “can’t miss” athletes who explode onto the scene with tremendous expectations, only to fail and not live up to the enormous pressures placed upon them.

Yes the media played a role in overhyping those athletes, and certainly contributes to the unfair pressures that ultimately destroy them. But that will always be part of the culture of pro sports.

In the same respects that an amateur athlete has to out-perform the competition to succeed at the pro level, he or she has to handle the media properly and not allow it to dictate or control their career.

But is their any type of age limit for the media with regards to covering athletes and launching them to a national audience? Is their an identified age that is too young for an athlete to be written about and promoted?

Is it okay to publicize high school athletes in the same manor and style as college and pro athletes? How about middle school age kids?

Is there anything wrong with, say, the New York Times writing an article about a 12-year old basketball player? Because in March the Times included a full-length feature story in its Sunday magazine about Allonzo Trier, a sixth-grader from outside of Seattle, WA, who’s already on the radar of some major college basketball programs.

In the examples of Harper and Trier, the young athlete’s parents were involved in the media stories about their sons. The respective articles, in national publications, included quotes from Harper’s father and Trier’s mother. So one would assume the parents are involved in the relationship between athlete and media.

But does that make it okay? Does the parent’s permission alone give the media the right to put children in the national spotlight?

It seems okay for the media to criticize the NCAA or AAU Basketball for exploiting young athletes to earn millions of dollars. But isn’t media coverage of under-aged athletes also a form of exploitation?

Maybe…maybe not.

Harper and Trier are both extraordinary sports stories that were told in two separate fashions.

The Harper story praises the 16-year old for his incredible athletic gifts and unprecedented success in amateur baseball. While the Trier story, although thoroughly details his tremendous basketball talents, really examines the pressures put upon a poor African-American kid to sacrifice his childhood for the pursuit of success in basketball.

Although both stories revolve around sports and young athletes, the tone and message of each are completely different. The Harper story, really, is just a hype-piece that’s introducing the world to a tremendous talent while the Trier story is more of a look into the socio-economic impact on sports.

I’m not suggesting that it’s the media’s responsibility alone to set the “ethical barometer” for publicizing minors in sports. But the media has to certainly alter and adjust its approach when focusing on amateur athletes, treating its subjects more carefully and delicately.

If many professional athletes struggle with national media attention, how can one expect amateur athletes in their teens to possess the maturity to handle it?