Even at this blog's most contentious, I always believed children of Gannett executives shouldn't be dragged into discussions about the company's management. My reasoning: They shouldn't suffer because of the (sometimes) bad decisions made by their parents.
But now a new blog is testing that idea. Expose Gannett was launched after The Journal News published names and addresses of handgun permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties in suburban New York. That ignited a firestorm of criticism by supporters of gun owners.
Expose has published names and home addresses (with maps) of five of Gannett's top executives, starting with CEO Gracia Martore. In two cases, the blog -- whose author is anonymous -- has identified two minor children by name, and attempted to link to their Facebook pages.
Other critics also have posted home addresses and sometimes phone numbers. But Expose is taking a far more aggressive stance in the service of payback for what happened at the Journal News.
What are the ethical implications in Expose's methods? Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
But now a new blog is testing that idea. Expose Gannett was launched after The Journal News published names and addresses of handgun permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties in suburban New York. That ignited a firestorm of criticism by supporters of gun owners.
Expose has published names and home addresses (with maps) of five of Gannett's top executives, starting with CEO Gracia Martore. In two cases, the blog -- whose author is anonymous -- has identified two minor children by name, and attempted to link to their Facebook pages.
Other critics also have posted home addresses and sometimes phone numbers. But Expose is taking a far more aggressive stance in the service of payback for what happened at the Journal News.
What are the ethical implications in Expose's methods? Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
The Journal News implicitly declared war on law-abiding citizens who chose to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment. The act of exposing those people opens the door on the "perpetrators".
ReplyDeleteIf gun permits and other various "public" information is fair to print, then why isn't it fair to expose public knowledge of the "printer"?
Just because a blogger didn't go to Columbia or Missouri doesn't mean they can't "publish". In the Twenty-First Century, Freedom of the Press doesn't belong only to those who can afford a printing press.
Last time I looked, Facebook and other online sites can be accessed by the public at large. For how many centuries have newspapers violated a child's privacy by printing birth notices? Or helped identity thieves by printing obituaries? Sorry, the press doesn't get a pass. Not today.
The basic question being asked here is one of "civility". In the electronic age, "civility" has been dead since Goldwater nuked an innocent little girl in 1964.
And so it goes . . .
This ridiculous post just goes to prove again that "common sense isn't so common."
DeleteTo claim that "civility" is dead and that birth notices and obituaries are invasion of privacy is to essentially say that any and all public information is off limits all the time.
There are too many idiot bloggers out there, and yes, the First Amendment does protect their right to be idiots, too -- as it does idiot readers like this one.
To John Holton:
DeleteYour post -- containing words like "ridiculous" and "idiot" -- only bolsters the argument that civility is dead.
Moreover, you still haven't addressed the core argument of those who favor publishing kids' names of Gannett executives, which is this:
If the Journal News can claim the right to publish the names and addresses of 44,000 gun owners because the information was "legally obtained" and "publicly available," why doesn't Expose Gannett have the same right -- even if its "legally obtained, publicly available" information includes children's names?
There's nothing ridiculous or idiotic about that question.
Expose Gannett has the "right" to put the kids' names on its blog. But the question is, is that an ethically and morally correct thing to do? I say no, but you probably disagree but that's your right. Could you sleep at night knowing that you posted or agreed with posting the names and Facebook pages of children for the sole purpose of harrassing those children? I couldn't.
DeleteHey, it's public information, so publish it and let the chips fall where they may.
ReplyDeleteI'm just following the philosophy of the Journal News and some of its supporters here.
In a Jan. 5 television editorial, Judge Jeanine Pirro ripped the Journal News a new one for putting her family and others at risk and then not even having the stones to answer questions about the decision
DeleteGood stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yw3sZ_reY8&feature=em-uploademail
Dragging kids into it is extreme and inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteReally! The sword is sharp on both sides. Maybe you should remember that.
DeleteThe Journal News and its parent put their real names to their story; Expose has not.
ReplyDeleteI think The JN's news judgment in this case is way off; I can't think of one good reason to print that information. I could justify an article instructing people how to get the information -- it would be just as easy to find someone to coach you through the process of getting permitted as it would be to find someone whose house you want to...actually, I don't know what.
While public information is public for both sides in this debate, JN is willing to put names to their work; Expose (and supporters here) will not.
And unless minor children are directly involved, they're never fair game in a revenge tactic. JN won't interview minors without parent or teacher consent; don't drag them in -- that's basically hostage-taking.
Why does the Journal News deserve any special credit for putting its employees' names on its work? It's not as if the JN put its employees' addresses on the story, too.
DeleteFor that information you have to go to blogs like Robert Cox's (Talk of the Sound).
I also consider it telling that JN offices are now being protected by armed guards. Obviously, Journal News management believes that armed protection is a great idea ... as long as it applies to newspaper employees.
Are the children of the cops and corrections officers going to be spared when the criminals and their cohorts go to their homes looking to do harm?
ReplyDeleteWhat the Journal News did was wrong. There is no legitimate reason for publishing the names of those who purchased guns illegally.
ReplyDeleteIf I was one of those executives, I'd be pursuing a stalking/terroristic threats complaint against the person behind Expose Gannett. Freedom of speech doesn't include the right to expose those children to psychotic behavior of those who vehemently disagree. And the gun debate has become so heated that it is triggering extreme responses. If you don't believe that, Google "gun control" and go on some of the conservative forums. There is some very frightening stuff being posted.
Why Karen? Answer dragging congressmen around until they agree with a bunch of LEFT WING nut jobs and declaring the NRA a Terrorist organization. Talk about NUT JOBS! Oh and by the way you do relies that gun owners are tired of being accused of crimes that we never would even think of and just for your information Ted Kennedy's car killed more people than all of the gun owners I know of except the ones that have been to wars.
DeleteAfter Newtown and with all the armed nut jobs around, I would be very afraid if someone published the names and ages of my children. There ARE boundaries in all situations and the gun advocates have gone way too far this time.
ReplyDeleteRe-read your post 1:31 PM and put yourselves in the shoes of those the Journal News exposed (and those around them who’s homes are presumably un-armed) as this debate goes well beyond individual beliefs over guns, it’s about the JN taking advantage of a tragedy for commercial gain.
Delete2:10 ... 1:31 here. Please fully comprehend before commenting. In no way did my post make reference to whether JN was right on wrong. Can't understand why anyone would subject innocent children to an implied threat over something adults did. If I do something you don't like, hate me, but leave my kids out of it.
Delete@1:31
DeleteI can appreciate your desire to keep your kids safe.
But why do you assume that the children of gun owners haven't similarly been put at risk (or perhaps you don't care that they have) since the Journal News published the names and addresses of their parents?
Among those 44,000 gun owners are single mothers, at least some of whom had been trying to avoid obsessive stalkers. You don't think their kids are targets, now that the JN has done stalkers the favor of locating their long-lost prey?
If I felt my life – and those of my family members, were put at risk by The Journal News’ publication of my name and home address as a handgun permit holder, then I’d absolutely agree they’re fair game as Gannett fired the first shot.
ReplyDeleteBesides, it looks like Expose Gannett is only "publishing" information already publicly available.
Frankly, if they really wanted to drive a message home to Gannett, they’d run billboards near their schools about how little Johnny's mommy put their lives at risk for profit. Now, that hardball is well in line with a corporation that’s more than played its share of its own over the years.
The Journal News dragged kids into it when they published home addresses. I don't endorse what either has done, but Expose Gannett is giving Gannett a taste of its own medicine.
ReplyDeleteThis whole thing is a perfect example of the absurdity that has become public "debate" in America.
ReplyDeleteGood thing we have people like you making substantive and profound statements like that to elevate things.
DeleteEx-Burglars Say Newspaper’s Gun Map Would’ve Made the Job Easier, Safer
ReplyDeleteRead more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/ex-burglars-say-newspapers-gun-map-wouldve-made-job-easier-safer/#ixzz2H8uBoICG
I have connections at a Gannett newsroom, If the company puts my name and address on such a gun owner's map, I'm going to put out everything I can find on the personal information of every editor and reporter involved. And I mean everything. Public record or not. Gossip is fair game. Runor is fair game. Address and work hours are fair game. Children's names, ages and school is fair game.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to see anyone hurt, but apparently some editors seem to feel a political agenda is more important that the security of others. So, If you want an information war, be prepared. I'm tired of Liberals playing dirty and conservatives being the good guys. It's time to fight back and fight dirty or these idiots are going to drag us all into being China, or worse, at least they have jobs. And seeing as how you have no idea what site I work for, you might want to think twice about any future maps...
"Liberals playing dirty and conservatives being the good guys". Are you kidding me? You seem to forget all the cries of liberals being unpatriotic during the Bush Administration's Reign of Error. I suppose Ann Coulter was being the good guy when she accused 9/11 widows of being happy that their husbands were dead so they could get a lawsuit settlement, right?
DeleteThankfully, we've had that Islamic Socialist native of Kenya in the Oval Office for the last four years. You know, the one who has been getting a pass from the conservative good guys for the last five years, right?
Crissakes, any chance you might have of persuading people to see your side of things goes completely out of the window when you make such ridiculous emotional statements as you have done. Use some real facts and logic on your side, and people might find it in their hearts to see your point of view.
Can we at least strive for some context?
DeleteAnn Coulter never said that ALL 9/11 widows were "enjoying their husbands' deaths" -- as Newsweek and your vague accusation implied.
Her specific complaint was that the so-called Jersey Girls -- four 9/11 widows who were constantly being trotted out to criticize the policies of the Bush administration -- were tools of the Democratic Party who were "using their grief in order to make a political point."
Coulter felt that the national media had granted the Jersey Girls a "doctrine of infallibility" -- i.e., the right to never have their opinions challenged -- and from what I recall, their 15 minutes of fame ended soon after Coulter named their game.
Any chance you might have of persuading people to see your point of view goes out the window when you serve as a ventriloquist's dummy for the Democrats instead of doing your homework and examining controversial topics (and people) from a more objective standpoint.
This is 11:27. Use some reading comprehension, 6:30. I didn't put "ALL 9/11 widows", I just said "9/11 widows". Those "Jersey Girls" were seeking information about how the 9/11 attacks happened and to find out if they could have been prevented. Something that I would think most people on here would agree upon.
DeleteOnly the Bush Administration was so afraid of being made to look bad, it took them 14 months before they finally were dragged kicking and screaming into setting up the commission. And then, info on al-Qaeda funding was redacted, which left more questions unanswered. The women wanted all the information revealed to the public. Conservatives, led by your girl Ann, were against it.
http://911truthnews.com/jersey-girls-who-emerged-after-911-stay-activists/
As far as their "15 minutes of fame," I would think most of them would gladly have traded that to have their husbands back. But that just goes to show everyone your thinking. You'd rather measure levels of fame instead of worrying about getting to the truth.
@11:27
DeleteMy reading comprehension is fine -- it's your communications skills that need polishing.
Your exact words were that Coulter "accused 9/11 widows of being happy that their husbands were dead so they could get a lawsuit settlement."
Your sentence is so vague that there's no way to determine whether you mean Coulter leveled her accusation against ALL 9/11 widows or only a small number of them. Sorry, I don't moonlight as a mind reader.
And by all means, keep telling me with a straight face that the Jersey Girls were only interested in the truth, and that they weren't Democrat operatives in the least.
Yeah, I guess that explains why Lorie Van Auken got on WABC radio and defended Clinton deputy attorney general (and 9/11 commission member) Jamie Gorelick -- who authored the 1995 "Wall Memo" that limited the flow of information between intelligence gatherers and criminal investigators.
"Gorelick gets a bad rap with that whole, you know, 'wall thing,'" Van Auken said on WABC.
Yep, the Jersey Girls were really interested in the truth, all right -- except for that whole, you know, "wall thing."
anonymous 4:18
ReplyDeleteThe basic question being asked here is one of "civility". In the electronic age, "civility" has been dead since Goldwater nuked an innocent little girl in 1964.
That was a Johnson ad aimed at Goldwater, jackass
My point exactly, Einstein.
DeleteBy publishing info on children, Expose Gannett has stooped to the level of Gannett. Yes, the sword has two sides and yes it is a dose of their own medicine but wrong is still wrong. Shame on Expose Gannett.
ReplyDeleteWhich will stand up first to do the right thing--Expose Gannett or the Journal News/Gannett?
The answer is no. The blogger put links to each child's Facebook page. That is disgusting. Executives are fair game but kids? Two wrongs don't make a right. And by the way like it or not the senior executives didnt know a thing about the story until it published. The editor and publisher made a stupid decision to publish an amature hour story. How does publishing the CFO's home address make sense. It's just, a pardon the bad pun, shotgun retribution approach. Posting addresses of senior executives in Nazi, yes Nazi websites. Really? Shameful all around. Inexperienced Publish makes a terrible decision and the crazies retaliate by posting a child's Facebook page on a Nazi website? Have at iit haters
ReplyDeleteHere is my take. The Publisher and Editor have put the paper in a negative position from which they may not recover. Yea, yea Freedom of the Press I know. But their action will cost the site millions of dollars in revenue for years to come. It can't be fixed with an "I'm sorry" and it's not going away. The company needs to move or terminate the two executives. Nothing else will level the playing field. Anything less and the business will suffer for years. Tremendous error in judgement, they need to go.
ReplyDeleteThey ran that map with a poor story to sell papers and generate Web traffic, and no other reasons. Forget the platitudes about Freedom of the Press and informing the public.Like other Gannett decisions, it was short-sighted and will cost them much in the long term.
DeleteYou're wrong. There is another reason. They thought by running the story that they would look good with corporate. It's why stories like this has been done for years with Gannett. How else do you explain mainstreaming? Nobody would care about how many minorities were quoted in the paper, except for Gannett executives.
DeleteWe certainly appreciate Mr. Hopkins' questions related to the ethics of posting the information of family members of executives. We believe that the linked response will answer many of the questions people have. We are under no delusion that everyone will suddenly agree with us. We understand that our methods evoke emotions and provoke different responses. Our purpose is to subject "the powers that be" to the same kinds of scrutiny as they have subjected law abiding private citizens to.
ReplyDeleteTrackback: http://exposegannett.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/is-this-site-going-too-far/
You purposely exposed children to unreasonable risk. I do not care what an executive did. You are a thug don't pretend to be on a quest. Putting a child at risk because you are upset with their parent is unacceptable. On his worst day Hopkins never did that
DeleteThe paper NEVET provided a link to a kid's Facebook page. You might have been able to make a case with an executive's address but a kid's FB page and school? Not buying your self righteousness
DeleteExpose Gannett:
DeleteI have no quarrel with what you're doing. In a perfect world it wouldn't be necessary, but the Journal News' decision to publish the names and addresses of 44,000 gun owners reminds us that the world is anything but perfect.
Speaking of reminders, I will repeat what I've said before: If the Journal News' best defense for its actions is that the information was "legally obtained" and "publicly available," then brace yourself for the other edge of that sword.
A few trips to local courthouses and municipal buildings can yield a treasure trove of embarrassing and potentially threatening "legally obtained" public information on children, Social Security numbers, mental health evaluations, alcoholism counseling information and countless other details pertaining to Gannett employees' personal lives.
And someone should remind the Journal News that just because you CAN publish something doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Those guns you have, under the big Constitution, in which you say is your right to defend it. Also gives the right of a press to publish and tell the non gun owners, of any PUBLIC documents, you had to get to give you the right to own a gun. If you were really a law abiding citizen, then you would honor this law.
DeleteHere's a salute to you, Expose Gannett. The best service you're providing is to discourage any other publisher from doing the same.
DeleteIf you're going to condemn Expose Gannett for publishing information about kids, it's a bit presumptuous to assume that no children in the 44,000 households mentioned in the Journal News article have now been put at risk.
DeleteIf Expose Gannett was thuggish, JN management was at least as thuggish for publishing the names and addresses of the families of police officers, prison guards, domestic violence victims, rape victims, etc., then trying to cloak themselves in the sacred garments of the First Amendment.
So, any information that is deemed "public" is fair game? I bet I could dig up some embarrassing info on you with a credit card and a search site aimed at selling "public" information. I hope that every homeowner who has their house burglarized sues the paper for supplying the criminal with a map to their home and the information that it was unprotected. Let them fight hundreds of lawsuits and we'll see if it was worth it. The constitution only protects free speech where it does't harm others... The fire in a crowded theater cliche'. So, if their actions directly lead to someone's home being broken into, or heaven forbid someone being injured or killed, then, in my opinion, their first amendment right's are nullliified.
Delete4:53 I am not supporting the JN. EG is thuggish. Publishing a child's Facebook link and naming their school was premeditated to intimidate. There is no excuse for doing so, none. I hate this whole affair. Saying you don't agree with publishing the children's Facebook accounts but..... Is agreeing with the decision.
DeleteYou're complete scum, Expose Gannett. Plain and simple. You want to pick on grown-ups? Go for it — they're publicly part of this and deserve what you can dig up.
DeleteYou start taking down kids, you deserve the worst. I don't think you'll see the JN counter with trying to take down kids — because, even on their worst day, you've just proven that their ethical standards are higher than yours. Thanks for revealing your true colors so we know who to trust.
@10:32
DeleteDo you seriously believe that among the 44,000 addresses published in the Journal News, not a single one contains a child or children who have now been put at risk from dangerous people who hold a grudge against their parent(s)?
I just don't understand how you can muster up such outrage against Expose Gannett while granting the Journal News a free pass.
Whether or not the JN specifically mentioned the names of children, they've callously put countless kids at risk in their vain quest for meaningful journalism.
I would not visit your link for fear of adding one more click to your ego driven arsenal.
DeleteThe bloggers that have been publishing personal info on journalists and staffers simply prove how easy it is to get this kind of info, yet the newspaper publishing it is somehow a travesty. I would say these proud gun owners evidently aren't quite so proud of the ownership as they claim.
The big difference between what the newspaper did and these haters is that the newspaper did not invite readers to call the listees's homes at midnight, or expose their children to ridicule, or blatantly invite lawlessness. These are the behaviors that earn you the title of nut job.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletearmed guards for everyone ! not in the budget, no problem, another furlough will cover it !
ReplyDeleteYou say you chose to remain annonymous because big bad Gannett has a lot of money. Not sure when Gannett sued Jim. Oh yeah, never. I am employed so I don't use my name. What is your excuse?
ReplyDeleteWe're all employed as well. We always find it interesting when anonymous commentators berate us for being anonymous. Seems to be the pot calling the kettle black.
DeleteExpose Gannett, your not ANONYMOUS. The second you post anything on the net, their is an electronics trail a mile long.
Delete"Can" and "should" are always independent questions when reviewing the publication of mass amounts of public data made useful through the work of journalists. Making data easy to sort and sift creates a tool. In a factory, the safety of a tool is always tested before passing along to the public.
ReplyDeleteThe barrier of the work it takes to compile the data and make it usable keeps the flyby bad guys from doing harm. Hard to stop a strategic criminal or person bent on doing others harm, but there are far less of those then the smart ones. If the news org has a reason to publish because it supports a premise or concept in a news story, it might be necessary as evidence of a trend. Still a problem may be created, but intent is an important part of any publication equation.
Are we doing it for page views, sensationalism or for a real purpose. If the latter is reasonable, the need may be there despite concerns. Sometimes the database should be held inside a newsroom, to be used as a tool for story ideas and not something lobbed for less noble parties to utilize for other means.
While it's not right to publish kids info (that is just flat out cowardly), the Journal News started this, and now they want to cry foul. This is classic of people who live in a theoretical world of academia and it's hypotheticals. Perhaps they didnt think this through in their haste to out completely legal, law abiding citizens of the County. Activism with consequences...I'm never going to buy another Gannett publication, and when I pick one up that is left on an airplane or table, I will boycott any advertiser (especially full page ones) that I see.
ReplyDelete1:53 way to take a stand, "it's not okay" but ......
ReplyDelete"They started it?" What are you six years old? EG published a child's Facebook page link. No excuse what so ever, period.
ReplyDelete@5:25
DeleteBut you think it's OK for the Journal News to publish the addresses of 44,000 households, many of which contain children who have now been put at risk from dangerous individuals?
Ah well, as long as it's not the kids of JN employees, right?
You're exhibiting typical Gannett ivory-tower hypocrisy: "An action is unethical only when it affects our staff and management personally."
6:46, do you see the irony in your post?
DeleteI would think those kids would be more at risk of getting accidentally shot in their home with their parents' gun than be put at risk from dangerous individuals.
What’s Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander… Pirro on The Journal News. She wouldn’t name names the way Gannet has, but she certainly lays out why so many support fighting back like Expose Gannett has, and should as it crossed the line for commercial gain.
ReplyDeletehttp://video.foxnews.com/v/2075684002001/
Love the Pirro response. Seeing Hasson's lame response, I wonder what else anyone could expect from one of Hunke's team?
DeleteI told our editor and publisher that if they ever decided to publish information like that, a good portion of us would quit our jobs. We have children, too. Children who were put at risk of encountering a burglar or home invader seeking guns if they think the parents are home.
ReplyDeleteThis ethical debate is interesting as reasonable people can have different opinions about involving family members of an irresponsible press. May I suggest a more constructive move forward? Let's boycott the biggest advertiser in Gannett! Let's say XYZ store or chain is the one. A demonstration outside their location, perhaps including un-concealed long guns, might pass legal muster but certainly suggest to the XYZ folks to spend their advertising dollars elsewhere!
ReplyDeletePunishing advertisers isn’t the answer as the ultimate hit to Gannet is marginal at best. Besides, few would want to engage so directly in this debate.
DeleteNow, pushing for a timeout with Gannett whereby advertisers quietly refuse to run ads on a specific day/days of the week would get more notice and isn’t that the point. So too would encouraging subscribers to take a timeout as well by either putting in a “vacation stop” or an outright cancellation until Gannett admits they crossed a line for what it thought would be more profit.
First off, I would be happy for people to know I was a registered gun owner. It might send the burglers to another home to rob. After all, wouldn't they go on the path of least resistance? Criminals go after the weak.
ReplyDeleteNext, if you believe what the paper did was wrong, how do you reconcile with the fact of doing wrong yourself by taking similar action you decry. That is quite hypocritical don't you think?
Sometimes, you have to have your hand burnt to know that the stove is hot.
DeleteWTF does that mean? Two wrongs only equal a right in math.
DeleteIt means nothing. Just another argument of a gun nut who's compensating for his tiny pee-pee.
DeleteThis is just an example of the how the news media
ReplyDeleteare filled with left wing leaning personnel.
The latest rumor is that this newspaper has lost
over 40% of their subscribers. Maybe the JN needs to
publish a listing of the new non-subscribers who also
are gun owners.
This media stunt seems the equivalent of The Cincy Enquirer's "BANANA GATE" which cost the publication
over $20million and forced a full Front Page retraction which ran for several days.
This gun issue may well end up costing the JN much more than dollars.
Well they got what they wanted Journal News or should I say intended. Two thieves intent on only the GUN safe broke into a home that had there address published. The editor should be drug into the street and bull whipped. Maybe that would bring some reality to the fact they (the staff) Yelled Fire in a crowded theater. Wonder now how many times now that a child or family will be endangered by these criminal actions.
ReplyDeleteAfter Newtown and with all the armed nut jobs around, I would be very afraid if someone published the names and ages of my children. There ARE boundaries in all situations and the gun advocates have gone way too far this time.
ReplyDeletePresswire