Ethical? Interactive map of gun permit holders

[Azrael]

Has anyone heard if any Journal News employees are gun permit holders, and, if so, if they were included in the list that was published?

The author of the story, for one.

But he doesn't live in the area covered by the interactive map.

 

[Azrael]

www.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/nyregion/after-pinpointing-gun-owners-journal-news-is-a-target.html?hp

"Personal information about editors and writers at the paper has been posted online, including their home addresses and information about where their children attended school; some reporters have received notes saying they would be shot on the way to their cars; bloggers have encouraged people to steal credit card information of Journal News employees; and two packages containing white powder have been sent to the newsroom and a third to a reporter's home (all were tested by the police and proved to be harmless)."

 

[kyleocker]

The map is not what I would call unethical. They didn't go steal information, this was all on the books for the public's eye. However, it was insensitive and honestly irrelevant. In my town, I could care less where the gun permit holders are at. I think they could have stopped at "So-and-so percent of households have a gun permit" or use the map data and say "So-and-so percent of gun permit holders are in this area, which has a high-crime rate." Stats like that.

 

[HejiraHenry]

The map is not what I would call unethical. They didn't go steal information, this was all on the books for the public's eye. However, it was insensitive and honestly irrelevant. In my town, I could care less where the gun permit holders are at. I think they could have stopped at "So-and-so percent of households have a gun permit" or use the map data and say "So-and-so percent of gun permit holders are in this area, which has a high-crime rate." Stats like that.

Nope, can't let you set that straw man up. Just as possible that it would be, "So-and-so percent of gun permit holders are in this area, which has a low-crime rate." As a result of wrongdoers being leery of, you know, getting shot.

 

[Captain Obvious]

Define high crime rate.

 

[HejiraHenry]

Define high crime rate.

Generally, "low crime rate" means the publisher hasn't (yet) been the victim of a crime.
By contrast, "high crime rate" means he or she has.

 

[kyleocker]

Define high crime rate.

Generally, "low crime rate" means the publisher hasn't (yet) been the victim of a crime.
By contrast, "high crime rate" means he or she has.

^precisely.

 

[outofplace]

www.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/nyregion/after-pinpointing-gun-owners-journal-news-is-a-target.html?hp

"Personal information about editors and writers at the paper has been posted online, including their home addresses and information about where their children attended school; some reporters have received notes saying they would be shot on the way to their cars; bloggers have encouraged people to steal credit card information of Journal News employees; and two packages containing white powder have been sent to the newsroom and a third to a reporter's home (all were tested by the police and proved to be harmless)."

Wait, school information about their kids was put out there, too?

Anybody who thinks that is the same as what the Journal News did, or even close, is absolutely clueless.

 

[Captain Obvious]

If it's on the Internet, it's public info, right?

 

[RickStain]

We live in a world where we all literally have more information easily available to us than we could ever process in a dozen lifetimes.

In such a world, whether or not something is public is significantly less relevant than whether it is publicized. As journalists, that's where we have to make our ethical choices. "It was already public information" is not an abdication of ethical or moral concerns with publicizing it.

 

[Captain Obvious]

We live in a world where we all literally have more information easily available to us than we could ever process in a dozen lifetimes.

In such a world, whether or not something is public is significantly less relevant than whether it is publicized. As journalists, that's where we have to make our ethical choices. "It was already public information" is not an abdication of ethical or moral concerns with publicizing it.

I know, but with newspapers publishing databases without much context, the "it's public information" seems to be the argument decision-makers in the industry are making.

Even the sex offender registries try to provide context by listing the crimes someone on the list committed.

 

[BenPoquette]

If information about where their children go to school was actually published (this is the first I have heard of this), it is inexcusable. Nowhere near what the Journal News did. And whoever did it should have their gosh darn head examined.