Journal News takes down gun maps

I know the Journal News/gun map saga has been covered on a couple of different threads, but I figured that this is pretty newsworthy to stand on it's own. The paper took down the maps after a torrent of criticism and some threats.

WaPo's Eric Wemple rips on them, and justifiably so:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/01/18/journal-news-takes-down-gun-maps/

My take: If you're going to take a stand on an issue as a paper, then take the stand. Don't be a bunch of wussies. Especially when your principles of ethics state that you support the public's right to information.

And I hope it teaches the paper and the company a lesson. Report the news to serve the public, not to win an award or to kiss company ass.

 

Good riddance.

They can frame it any way they like, but a second break-in of a house on the map - both of which seemed to have targeted any guns that could be found - probably convinced the paper's lawyers that it was time to punt.

This now pretty much becomes the "what not to do" example of database journalism without, you know, some actual reporting or context.

 

Totally agree.

 

i agree that it was a stupid move to post the map, but isn't one anti-gun control argument that people would never break into your house if they know you're armed?

 

If you're home, yes, it's a good argument. If a potential burglar is smart enough to operate an interactive map - and no one can yet say for sure that's what happened - then maybe they're smart enough to case a house until they're pretty confident it's unoccupied.

 

you are, of course, correct. but burglars not specifically trying to steal guns can case any house.

 

Put gun owners at risk of break-ins (when not home) by gun-hungry thieves. Put non-gun owners at risk of break-ins (whenever) by emboldened thieves. Put law enforcement folks/families at risk of retribution from criminals with whom they dealt. Put stalked women, who'd found new digs and had firearm for protection, at risk by revealing whereabouts. And the ninnies who posted the info sure backed away fast from suggestion that they post "I'm gun-free" signs in their front yards.

Zero public good served by this "outing" of people exercising basic rights. Paper served editors' political agenda by trying to impose scarlet "G" on gun owners but did more than shape opinions -- created actual, life-threatening problems.

That's a big fail by an operation purporting to serve its community.