A leading journalism think tank has come down on The Journal News of Hudson Valley, New York, for publishing the addresses of gun permit holders without cause.
Roy Clark, a senior scholar at the Poynter Institute, a Florida-based journalism think tank, told the Associated Press that the online map pinpointing gun owners’ homes was comparable to a sex-offender registry. “You get the connotation that somehow there’s something essentially wrong with this behavior,” he said. “My predisposition is to support the journalism; I want to be persuaded that this story or this practice has some higher social purpose, but I can’t find it.”
Today Al Tompkins, a senior faculty member at Poynter and 35-year veteran journalist, panned the Westchester paper for publishing the data.
“The problem is not that the Gannett-owned Journal News was too aggressive. The problem is that the paper was not aggressive enough in its reporting to justify invading the privacy of people who legally own handguns in two counties it serves,” Tompkins wrote in his Al’s Morning Meeting blog.
“If journalists could show flaws in the gun permitting system, that would be newsworthy. Or, for example, if gun owners were exempted from permits because of political connections, then journalists could better justify the privacy invasion,” he wrote. “If the data showed the relationship between the number of permits issued and the crime rates, that serves a public purpose. You would have to also look at income, population density, housing patterns, policing policies and more to really understand what is going on and why.”
“If a news org compared permit owners with a database of felony offenders in local counties, that could be a public service. Years ago I recall a Minneapolis TV station doing this and they found the state issuing hunting licenses to felons,” he continued. “But none of those stories would require the journalist to name the names and include the home addresses of every permit holder. The mapping might be done by ZIP code or even by street.”
Tompkins noted that even though he’s not a big fan of sex offender maps, “at least there is a logical reason for posting them, even though the offenders often no longer live where the maps show them to be.”
“The difference between the sex offender maps and the gun permit maps is that sex offenders have been convicted of a crime. The permit holders are accused of nothing,” he said.
In summarizing what journalistic purpose if any publishing the gun owners’ names served, Tompkins wrote, “If publishing the data because it is public and the public seems to be interested in the topic right now is reason enough, then there are endless databases to exploit.”
“If your county required dog and cat licenses would you publish that interactive map? I suspect the licenses would be public. I sure would like to know if there were three dogs living behind me before I moved in,” he said. “I have seen news organizations publish the salaries of local and state government employees for no reason other than that they can. Why? Did we think they all worked for free? If somebody is playing the system, expose them. But use the surgeon’s tools, not a chainsaw approach.”
If the newspaper really wanted to do some journalism, it would look into those government sponsored gun buy-backs that are put on to get guns off the “street”.
A competent newsman would find out how many of those guns are stolen, and whether or not the police do anything to return the stolen guns to their rightful owners.
But we know the newspaper in the story is run by lefties who are trying to promote gun prohibition and to drive newspaper circulation into the toilet. So, we’ll just have to surmise that many of those guns are stolen and that no effort is made to return them to their rightful owners.
If the newspaper really wanted to do some journalism, it would illuminate the disparity between the speeches of celebrities, and the armed posses whom they hire as bodyguards.
Michael Moore certainly comes to mind, and the ‘reporter’ for the Journal News who’s licensed to carry in NYC but whose info is excluded from their interactive map, and Rahm Emanuel and Obama, whose kids all are under armed guard at their hoity-toity schools.
NOT only did the newspaper violate the privacy rights of legal gun owners, but they did the bidding of the Dem machine, and herein lies the crux. There is NO daylight between the media and the Obama machine, as they operate Pravda-like.
Hiding behind the Freedom of Info Act they perverted all meaning of this mandate. For if they are correct, then surely they have NO problem with the same gun owners, or the NRA too, publishing the addresses/info of those who snooped into their rights! After all, if one can contrive the meaning of a mandate, surely the other side can too – and they should!
And if the Journal was interested in all the news that was fit to print, they would have started here -http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/12/18/what-the-msm-is-predictably-blacking-out-in-their-coverage-of-recent-shootings-brief-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
Whore-like media.
Once again, lost in the (thoroughly justified) outrage over the Journal-News having published the names and addresses of permit holders is the fact that the Journal-News also published the names and addresses of people whose permits had expired or lapsed—and the Journal-News knew this when it published these names and addresses.
I know of one family whose address appears on the list. The permit, in the name of the gun owner, has been inactive for at least five years because the gun owner (now dead) became incapacitated and his wife sold the guns. Yet the name and address appears on the Journal-News map—with a different color dot to show that the permit has lapsed.
A case could, theoretically, be made for publishing the names and addresses of current permit holders—though nobody has yet done so. But there is not the slightest excuse for knowingly publishing the names and the addresses of people whose permits have lapsed or expired.
What a stretch! A lapsed permit!???
The fact that a permit has lapsed confuses you?
The “excuse” was to make the “problem” of licenced handguns appear more serious than it is. I think they realized that most readers would skim over the map, noticing the density of the dots but not paying attention to the colors. What does the map look like when you mentally remove the lapsed licenses? Maybe not quite as scary? Right – but that wouldn’t support the narrative. Propaganda journalism any way you look at it.
Well, that’s what happens when you think that gun registration and licensing is patriotic and law-abiding.
“Shall not be infringed.” was never changed through the amendment process. It was done by judicial activism and government fiat.
‘Shall not be infringed’ was put in there in order to prevent this sort of thing. iow, the government has no constitutional authority to license and regulate guns and gun owners. It has no constitutional authority to compile lists of gun owners. When governments do that sort of thing, it’s usually called ‘tyranny’ …not freedom.
Smell the coffee, people.
It’s time to wake up.
We cannot trust either our government or the people who voted it in. They are predators, we are the host. We need good weapons as a deterrent to unlimited predation.
Larry Correia refutes the gun controllers once and for all!
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” –Benjamin Franklin
Clearly, what the country needs is a system for licensing journalists that includes background checks and criminal penalties for committing journalism without a license.
Then all the legitimate journalists can have their names and addresses posted online.
For your reading pleasure…
Now you just hit on something with a great deal of validity though probably not your intent. The profession of journalism should have to meet academic journalism and professional testing standards and be licensed to practice journalism in or on any type of professional ‘licensed’ journalism venue.
Afterall, barbers and beauticians have to meet academic and testing standards and be licensed. On the other hand, maybe it is by some intent that journalists are to be considered something less than a barber or beautician.
Regardless, the paper broke no laws.
>Regardless, the paper broke no laws.<
Actually, they may have. New York apparently has a law on the books that prohibits releasing information about weapon permits to anyone but a law enforcement agency.
Gerry — If you come across any followup on this point it would be interesting to have posted. Thanks!
Do you want to license people who take advantage of the first Amendment? I don’t!
The 1st Amendment is for all, not just (jo)urianlists!
There are ‘particular’ laws that pertain to that of ‘journalists’ that do not apply to everybody else. Try as a ‘comonn citizen’ to access a very long list of events and circumstances without a press pass. Try going into a court and tell the judge your ‘source(s’) of information is protected as a jouranlist.
Licensing standards for legitimate journalists is not a bad idea especially, given those who have emassed the airwaves and internet claiming to be journalists.
You may have just given the Leftists another bad idea to implement. With such a requirement, only leftists can apply, and posts like this one would be prosecuted.
If my home were broken into and my safe of firearms ripped from the wall (or indications it was tried), I would sue the daylights out of the newspaper corporation as a whole, as well as each and every individual associated involved with the publication of my address. Hit ‘em where it hurts… the wallet is always a good place to start.
Too bad no media outlet put this much effort into examining Fast and Furious. Or asking who ordered the stand down at Benghazi.
Update on this story: a blogger turned the tables on that hideous paper by creating a map of the employees’ names and addresses. Let’s see how those reporters & editors like being targets.
The blogger who did this is setting a good example for the rest of us. The Alinsky tactics of the left need to be repeled with a suitably asymetric and vicious response. I say publish detailed personal info on the papers editors, owner, and the “jounalist” who wrote this crap. Make it very personal. I say there is no out of bounds for a hit piece like this when it comes to those individuals. Anyone who advertizes in that cat box liner should be boycotted and subscriptions should be cancelled. The message should be sent in no uncertain terms loud and clear. The goal should be to force this rag into insolvency.
It’s time to play hardball with the left, they need their propaganda instruments financially destroyed. The way to do that is to cut off their access to revenue while simultaneously heaping as much ridicule as possible on the persons who pulled this crap.
The blogger who published the personal info is off to a nice start. The heat needs to be turned up a lot higher.
Big city folks are a funny people! Millions upon millions of people, should they read all these comments, would be rolling on the floor. Their newspapers are published with a staff who are everybodys neighbors and they all know far more about each other than just what guns they do or don’t have in their homes.
This nation doesn’t revolve around the 300 or so big city cancer centers of America! Those who choose to live in such cancer centers must bear the consequences of such decision.
Wow.
You’re less coherent than usual, even.
You must not have settled yourself from being pwned, yet.
Note to Tom Perkins: Adulthood called, and wants to know where you are.
“Pwned” is for pimple-faced punks.
“pwned”
Typical of one from the hood or somebody with such mentality! An attorney worth anything wouldn’t be found on such sites bantering and belittling people hours on end as you do. END OF STORY!
It’d sure be an awful shame if any of their expensive houses were burglarized. And god forbid anyone was hurt, them being unarmed and all (as a matter of high principle).
A madman using a stolen rifle kills a bunch of children in a “gun-free zone”. In response the Journal publishes the locations of legal owners of handguns and by default who does not legally own a handgun. What could possibly go wrong?
I guess logic is not a required subject in journalism school.
If anything, logic is prohibited.
Spouting the proggy party line is required.
Only the First and Second Amendements of the constitution protect ‘against’ common sense and or logic.
Well then use the prescriptive solution found in the Constitution itself. Just have your Senators and Representatives and your State legislature amend the Constitution. Other than that please quit bleating your nonsense.
Seems you don’t quite have any legal understanding of either the First or Second Amendment. May I suggest you consult with an appropriate attorney submitting your suggestion of amending those two amendments and get educated.
Logic is “racist,” you know.
Stupidity is reason enough to publish the names, addresses and locations on a map. Progs seem to have this in spades.
Newspaper breaks law by publishing gun owners information.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/12/outing_the_privacy_of_the_editors_who_out_others_privacy.html
Time for some payback.
The addresses are useful information – both for people wanting to know where they can get guns, and for people wanting to know where they face a low probability of facing a gun. I am not sure this is the public service the reporters intended, but it is the public service they performed.
If the comments on the Journal-News’ own website are any indication, they may as well put up the shutters and list the printing press on eBay — they’re toast.
http://www.lohud.com/comments/article/20121226/NEWS02/312260035/Journal-News-gun-owner-database-draws-criticism
A WARNING TO GUN GRABBERS AND COLLECTIVIST MEDIA: BY CALLING FOR GUN CONTROL, YOU ARE UNLEASHING YOUR OWN WORST NIGHTMARE
By screaming about how they wish to destroy the Second Amendment and disarm the American people, … READ MORE: http://bwcentral.org/2012/12/a-warning-to-gun-grabbers-and-collectivist-media-by-calling-for-gun-control-you-are-unleashing-your-own-worst-nightmare/
There must be a political debate, and legislation, which addresses the metes and bounds of data privacy, and off normal use. It has become particularly important in the current age of massive data banks, required by the government(s) on citizens. The driving force is the cost collapse of electronic sensing, transmitting, and logging of data stored in “public” repositories. What once cost $500,000 now costs less than a penny, so massive data gatherers are now possible, and exist, e.g. traffic speed cameras, and speed recorders in cars. If your new car emission systems goes out of legal limits, your car can now call the green cops, without your approval. A cop, is some police station may hit a mouse and shut off your engine, without your ability to over ride his command, start your engine. You may be in a bad part of town at 3 AM, but that is not his problem.
Roughly half of the gun permit holders released in the Journal News’ data dump are/were police officers. Each has put people in jail, and some are angry about it. The Journal News’ Hasson, “felt sharing information about gun permits” was a good thing, but what about cops’ feelings for the safety of their family? Hasson made pay backs, via murder, a lot easier. Who has the right to disclose publicly gathered information about an individual? Is any judicial review of discovery extant? Is Hasson feelings about the release of classified data a permission?
I feel I might wish to know where Mr. Hasson goes, 24/7, how fast he drives, and his entire record of driving violations. All is, or will be public information.
Hope the police union sues.
Hope nobody is hiding from a violent former spouse or partner. Or relative. Or angry ex-employee.
There isn’t much that’s true coming out of criminology departments these days, but they are onto one thing: crimes like these inspire other unstable people — to homicide and suicide — in the aftermath.
There aren’t many reasons accepted for owning guns in New York. And they are difficult for criminals to get, too. So the paper has just created a very big security risk for the owners.
Funny that the Poynter Institute, a radically leftist institution dedicated mainly to accusations in the diversity vein, disapproves. Of course, their partner publication, the Tampa Bay Times, subsidizes their diversity today tomorrow and forever programming by running lurid mugshots of people before the justice system can decide whether these people should even be prosecuted for a crime. Some journalism ethics think tank that is.
Reminds me of a day in history class from 68er leftist high school teacher. He wanted to demonstrate that police work was not an actual profession. Obiously it was due to his simple minded bias against police.. But motives aside; he made a good technical argument… but the memory came up because most of the same things are lacking in journalism. There are no powerful associations that work to impose ethical standards. Most of their associations simply act like a union to shield them. This example stands out in regards to that but it also still works towards proving the point on another level. They’re just a think tank. Their view holds no force and effect.
The excuse cited for publishing information on licensed concealed carry weapon holders was the Newtown shooting. What has one got to do with the other? There were no CCW holders even remotely involved in the crime.
Or, for example, if gun owners were exempted from permits because of political connections, then journalists could better justify the privacy invasion,” he wrote.
*snicker*
How many “journalists” are writing about David Gregory’s violation of DC gun laws? Gee, there’s a story: “the current gun control laws are so crazy that its easy for anyone to run afoul of them”. So where are all the stories explaining what *would* have happened to Gregory if he wasn’t a member of the Inner Party…
[chirp, chirp]
“Journalist Think Tank” Ha!
If the newspaper really wanted to do some journalism, it would illuminate the disparity between the speeches of celebrities, and the armed posses whom they hire as bodyguards.
“If the newspaper really wanted to do some journalism”… they would interview all the DC Elites that send their kids to the Sidwell School where they have ARMED GUARDS. Yes, the same political hacks and media celebs that denounce you as crazy for wanting to have the same for you own school.
Those wacky leftist journalists shouldn’t use a chainsaw approach? For “the cause” that’s all they care about? “You can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs,” Walter Duranty used to repeat (about Stalin’s actions, after Stalin said it).
Bridget,
Please be careful to NOT repeat the new lie or applaud that what was published was GUN OWNERS, that was not the case at all. Many are rewriting this fact in their critique of. Hey its a down the wormhole anyway gun owners bah
they got a country to destroy its all about the
OPTICS ( lame new commie term ).
Prepare in leisure what you use in haste. Benjamin Franklin
A more interesting story would be to get the raw data the newspaper used and then see who’s name and address they Did Not publish.
If it can be shown that they did not publish this information when it concerned family, friends, or political allies then that would show malicious intent in the publication of the other names, due to their attempt to shelter these individuals from the harm that they anticipated this would cause.
That is a story I would like to read about.
You’re devious.
I like that!
Here’s the problem.
There is no such thing as “the public’s right to know” about every little thing that might arouse curiosity.
We have a right to know what our public officials are doing.
We do NOT have right to know about the legal activities of private citizens, whether those be which Hollywood degenerate is sleeping with which Hollywood degenerate, or what my neighbor ate for breakfast, or who owns a Ford or a Chevy or a Glock or a Bushmaster.
It’s none of our business, and therefore, it’s none of the media’s business.
Chicago Racks Up 500th Murder Of The Year… The same Chicago that has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-2012-homicide-toll-20121228,0,5456581.story
Does anyone believe publishing the names, phone numbers, photos, and addresses
of the newspaper publisher, editor, and reporters would
benefit the exercize of free speech?
Lets say there is a rash of break-ins and home invasions because of this
Lets say some people die, including children, in their homes because of this.
Wouldn’t you want to know where to find the people that led criminals to your door?
People that try to make bad things happen by releasing private info deserve to live in fear of the people that they tried to hurt.
IMO
I can only think of two reasons for doing this:
1. The most probable reason would be to manufacture an “OMG” outcry over the excessive amount of guns in the community.
2. Give felons a “heads up” about where not to ply their trade. They now have a very good idea where the easy pickings are. Saving the life of predatory animals is very important business.
I think it was a dog whistle, if you will, to tell their progs to “sick em”. A list of who to harass when it comes to the gun control debate. It’s their way of having that “conversation”.
Kinda like when the “progs” posted names and addresses of abortion providers accross the country? Oooops! That wasn’t the “progs” was it?
Question–since the paper wants to be on top of things in terms of the “timely” and people wanting to feel safe.
Should not the paper post a map of people suffering from mental illness–esp those living close to schools?
Sure guns are used in many cases but a quick search of attacks on schools shows that bombs and knives etc. and gasoline is also often used.
The single common factor seems to be mental illness—so it would seem–in an intellectually honest discussion—that knowing where crazy people lived would be really important.
Nobody is suggesting that people suffering from mental illness should not be treated with care and compassion–but given that people with such problems make up the largest group–by far, of those that attack schools and given that such people have used such things as simple gasoline other easily obtainable items that can be used as weapon to attack and kill children….than should not the paper have an equally vested interest in keeping tabs on such folks—esp those that live near schools.
If not–then WHY NOT? What is the argument for putting the locations of LEGAL gun owners on-line while not doing the same for the other half of the “danger to our kids” equation?
It is not completely a lose, lose. One of the cornerstones of the anti-2nd amendment rank and file is stereotyping. Not only do they have a monlithic mindset, but they fervently blieve that gun people are male, southern, conservative, Christian, white, rural, uneducated hog hunting, low lifes and probably birthers. This article flies in the face of this deep seated belief and exposes this false premise. They simply cannot grasp that millions of ordinary American gun owners or sympathizers are from all walks of life, races, sexes, ages, geographies. This is why the NRA fared well in the Gallup poll. Until they wake up to this reality, they will fail in their efforts because they insult and insinuate against the wrong people.
Need I mention, that many gungho anti-2nd amendment elites live in low crime suburbs, gated communities, or secure buildings.
The paper has a POLITICAL AGENDA. The many leftist media outlets foaming at the mouth to push their agendas. The media should not report invented contrivances and call it journalism . Shame on these hucksters .
I deserve much more information on those who work for that paper. We should start with criminal records. It would certainly be nice to know about any potential conflicts of interest, so how about their investments? Let’s not stop there, the same information should likewise be published for their relatives as well. They may have done nothing wrong, but we have a legitimate need to know, by their very same logic.
Maybe some subscriber will publish the names of their advertisers, so we can let them know that we don’t want to support enablers of these tactics. The advertisers did nothing wrong. Neither did the permit holders.
I’m all about the golden rule.
Journalists call Poynter Institute “counter-revolutionary fascists” in response.
“So if you’re a criminal looking for a gun, you’ve just been given a map to where you can find some”
If you can get at a gun owner’s piece out in the open that easily David Keene, maybe more than criminals should be thinking about removing gun’s from a private residence.