Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Westchester | A publisher walks a narrow line

"New York residents have the right to own guns with a permit and they also have a right to access public information."

-- Publisher Janet Hasson, quoted in a Journal News story published late yesterday about largely negative reaction to the paper's publishing names and addresses of handgun permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties outside New York City. Retaliating, one blogger posted what he says is Hasson's home address and phone number.

25 comments:

  1. Peaceful, law-abiding private citizens have a right to privacy.

    Harassing them advances the public interest not one iota.

    ReplyDelete
  2. They've gotten exactly what they wanted out of this - pageviews. I'm sure execs at The Crystal Palace will be very pleased when they see the numbers that come out of this stunt. If anyone thinks people will befriend as a result of this they are sorely mistaken.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Be fired, not befriend.. Stupid auto-correct.

      Delete
  3. Just made CNN
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lazy, sensationalizing reporting on the paper's part.

      Delete
  4. They really should be ashamed of themselves, trying to get publicity at the expense of the massacre in CT. Let's call it for what it is. Get as much attention as you can for the sake of selling papers and getting page views... Let's see what happens if one of those employees or for that matter one of those gun owners is actually hurt because of this piece......I bet they'll run another story on that and milk it as much as possible....again!

    ReplyDelete
  5. What bothers me about Jim's coverage of this is that it is really a fascinating topic -- the public's right to know vs. the public's right to privacy, freedom of the press vs. the right to bear arms, and all kinds on smart discussions that could take place.

    But instead Jim seems almost giggly over the look-they-published-Gracia's-address angle. Which indeed is a big part of the story -- one blogger is posting shots of an editor's house and the car she drives while another notes the publisher's windows at=re very "breakable.'' Ugh.

    But the story is bigger than gee-they-published-Gracia's-street-address. Be a nice use of the Gannett Blog to actually debate the issue rather than hurling stones.

    This is a fascinating journalism case study, even if you disagree with doing it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What next — credit records?

    After all, in most neighborhoods foreclosures are a far more imminent threat than guns. Therefore, doesn't the public have every right to know when the guy next door gets behind on his mortgage? Or his FICO score? These days that information is so widely available it may as well be public.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This Journal News story now includes a reader comment that reveals the purported home addresses of Publisher Janet Hasson, reporter Dwight Worley, editor Nancy Cutler, and Gannett CEO Gracia Martore.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Does anyone on the list actually have any connection whatsoever to the Newtown tragedy — ostensibly the news hook that justified this?

    Has anyone on the list ever actually menaced or assaulted anybody, anywhere, under any circumstances?

    Wouldn't a database and map of menacing and assault complaints be infinitely more newsworthy and useful?

    Wouldn't a database and map of dangerous mental patients be infinitely more newsworthy and useful?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To your last point - that's what the NRA proposed!

      Delete
    2. But who determines what is a dangerous mental patient? The HC system goes out of its ways to avoid doing that.

      Delete
  9. former Democratic pollster and analyst Pat Caddell : we’re at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we maintain a free ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pat Caddell Says: Media Have Become “ Enemy of the American People ”

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IBR4g6cBYeA

      Delete
    2. Pat Caddell is right. Where is all this journalistic curiosity on all of the issues, not just ones the media wants to exploit to further their agenda. I guess the public's "right to know" stops there. Sad.

      Delete
    3. Pat Caddell is a useful idiot for the Fox Newses of the world.

      Delete
    4. Kind of an arrogant response, don't you think?

      Delete
  10. I don't recall when, but a while ago they did the same thing with the same results..'ya just don't learn!

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Journal News should issue an apology for sensationalizing the viewpoint or slant that gun-ownership equates to crime. When in fact, there should be stricter laws for homes that have dependents with mental-disorders. The Newton-shooter, himself, did not pocess the the mental stability to own a gun, however his mother did. It was ulimitely the mother who should have ascertained that the her child was not mentally healthy and the chlild should not been in contact with weapons of any sort. The case of the Lanza's prove, that a family member is not emotionally detached enough from dependents to see the the "forest through the trees." There should be a new law in which a gunowner should be made responsible in cases where household dependants are mentally ill. In those cases, there the gunowners should be educated to remove the guns from immediate access to the mentally ill. In the case of Nancy Lanza, I realize that she is also one of the victims and everyone has empathized with the severity of the issue. However, the fact that she took this particular child, who suffered from extreme social behavioral issues, and trained him at the shooting range also makes her somewhat guilty of the crimes committed. As much as she loved her child, she ignored a social responsibility to address her child's issues. If Nancy Lanza was not a vicitm of the shooting spree, I do believe she would have to answer to a an angree court-room as to why she decided to introduce guns to a mentally & socially challeged child. I think this is a case that mimics the fictious Dr. Frankenstien & Frankenstien-monster story. Although I am deeply sorry for Nancy Lanza's death, she did indeed create a monster when she placed a gun in the hands of her mentally challeged son, during her outings to the local shooting-range. We may also need gunowners to disclose the "training" of family members on thier firearms, so that all those with access go through the same background check as the actual owners.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are a lot of assumptions here. First of all, the mother is dead and cannot provide any information concerning the events that took place prior to her murder and her son's subsequent actions. Some reports--if any of the reports coming out of this affair are to be believed--have indicated Mrs Lanza was in the process of having her son forced into treatment and this might have caused him to have a mental break. Furthermore, who knows that Mrs Lanza did not have the firearms involved locked away from her son and he gained access to them--or, at least one of them--and began his rampage by killing her.

      Secondly, when someone starts a sentence with "There should be a new law...", I become uneasy. The easy solution is to pass a law but the hard part is to make people not want to break it. Lanza broke a helluva lot of laws on that fateful day--laws that were already in force. The fact that they existed did not prevent him from the bloodletting. Enacting more laws is a "feel good" action that will prevent nothing in the future, just as the current laws do no prevent current crimes.

      Until this amalgamation of cultures that form our society does a thorough soul-searching and decides to practice a cohesive, consistent, rational, ethical and (dare I say it?) moral behavior, nothing will ever be accomplished.

      Delete
  12. but a while ago they did the same thing

    Yes - with names and addresses yet. I think there were lawsuits, and the ACLU was involved somehow.

    Oh, my!!

    ReplyDelete
  13. What lawsuit could possible win? It's freedom of the press, as rigid and unyielding as freedom to bear arms.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tell it like it is12/26/2012 8:53 PM

    Well, since Gannett is a partial owner of Topix, where real names and addresses are outed all the time as a method of terrorism, I am not surprised by this action. But where is the outcry when the the so many people harmed, having their lives ruined by Topix defamation, suicides etc. happen??? The massive media scandal, of Topix has been carried out in silence since they are sheltered for the most part, by the press.

    ReplyDelete
  15. As a victim of a violent crime, I wish I had owned a gun years ago. When a stranger broke into my house, a gun would have ensured a different outcome. Rather, I endured unspeakable things.

    I learned that, when seconds count, the police are minutes away. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that the police do not have a constitutional duty to protect me. Any reckoning the legal system brought later was not soon or commensurate enough. There were two more victims before this person was caught.

    Guns are amoral. They can harm or protect, depending on the user. I have firsthand knowledge that evil does not need a gun. If there were no guns, evil would find another way. As a society, we would show evil new ways to hurt, kill and maim through films, games, all manner of filth on-line.

    I am a gun owner now. I have a conceal carry permit. I have been trained to use a gun, and I am responsible. I have complied with the state requirements to own a gun. The requirements include a background check of my mental health, as well as any criminal history. I sleep better. After work, I can walk to my car in the dark without breaking into a sweat.

    It is no one's business, that I am a gun owner. It is irresponsible for any news organization to publish the names of legal gun owners, much less an interactive map of where they live. There is no great benefit to this kind of disclosure. It is purely exploitative.

    Nancy Lanza was not a responsible gun owner. She was egregiously irresponsible, to dire and tragic consequences. Publishing her name would not have prevented the Newton massacre, nor would it have shed light on her son's mental state.

    A newspaper with journalistic integrity would have begun a community conversation of the gun permitting/ screening process that allowed Lanza to own guns accessible to unstable family member . A newspaper with journalistic integrity would have begun a community conversation on mental illness in America, and why Nancy Lanza did not recognize the dangerous instability in her son. A newspaper with a publisher with an ounce of journalistic integrity would call to light the culture of violence we live in, and ask for a reckoning from those who profit from it. That is what a newspaper is supposed to do, Janet Hasson.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Maybe if someone knew there were guns in a particular home they would stay away. Has anyone everthought about that? Why would you rob a home if you knew the owner was a registered gun owner?

    ReplyDelete

Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.