Knowing what not to publish

My son and I had barely finished our Saturday morning breakfast when an august body of independent, libertarian thinkers invited us to join the Knights of the Round Table at the back of the diner.

Colin paid for our breakfasts and we ambled on over.

Saturday's question for what passes as the county's only locally owned entity of the Fourth Estate involved a recent decision by the The Westchester County (New York) Journal News to publish the names and addresses of New York concealed carry gun permit holders in Putnam, Rockland and Westchester counties.

For a brief background, the newspaper published a story last month entitled “The gun owner next door: What you don’t know about the weapons in your neighborhood,” and an online map with red dots showing where licensed gun owners live and blue dots showing where citizens who have purchased a firearm in the past five years reside.

Janet Hasson, the newspaper's publisher, said: “We felt sharing information about gun permits in our area was important in the aftermath of the Newtown (Conn.) shootings.”

New York State Rep. Greg Ball was among the first to publicly criticize the paper, saying, "The Journal News is conducting a vendetta against law-abiding citizens who own guns and that subscribers should unsubscribe immediately." (Gotta admire the old boycott mentality.)

Rep. Ball said that a much more responsible course of action would be for the paper to publish the names of criminals who have been convicted of committing crimes with firearms in the region.

I don't disagree with the New York lawmaker. (And I'm certain I've never written that before!)

In retaliation, another online medium published the names and home addresses of the newspaper's employees. Following this, a number of the paper's employees have reported receiving suspicious packages. According to the paper, this past Thursday, a suspicious package delivered to editor’s home turned out to contain "non-toxic fecal matter." No, … kidding.

Thus, when asked for a professional opinion by the aforementioned esteemed Hillsboro Breakfast Club as to whether the corporate-owned (in this case, Gannett) newspaper ought to have published the names and addresses of law-abiding gun owners, I responded with a story of another Gannett-owned publication.

One of the lessons best learned early on for every young journalist is this: Just because something is public record, that doesn't mean a newspaper should publish it. Or, as Howard Beatty, the unofficial mayor of Fairfax, once told me: "I'll bet you spend as much time deciding what not to publish as what to publish."

Howard's right.

In 2007, The Cincinnati Enquirer made the professional and – in my opinion – wrong decision to publish the names of the jurors in the trial of Liz Carroll, who was convicted of murder in the death of foster child Marcus Fiesel.

I recall writing an opinion explaining why this decision was wrong and why the newspaper industry would have to accept another black eye in the court of public opinion.

To his credit, Tom Callinan, the Enquirer's editor and vice president, wrote a public apology on Feb, 23, 2007:

"I apologize," Callinan began.

"To the citizens who served on the jury in the trial of Liz Carroll, who was convicted of murder and six other charges in the death of foster child Marcus Fiesel.

"To Judge Robert P. Ringland, who presided over the case in Clermont County Court of Common Pleas.

"To our readers.

"The Enquirer on Thursday published the names of the nine women and three men who served on the jury. It was a late-night, deadline decision that simply was wrong. It was a mistake that could cause harm to those citizens. It had the potential to harm the judicial process. There is no doubt that it harmed the trust you have in The Enquirer.

"Yes, the names, ages and occupations of jurors are a public record, and there's good reason for that. We want a system that allows us to know who is judging us. We want a system that allows us to watch out for age, gender or racial bias. … Even an angry Judge Ringland acknowledged from the bench that The Enquirer had an unfettered right to publish the names. But the names were not essential in our wish to convey the makeup of the jury. It is interesting and not irrelevant that a power company lineman, restaurant server and psychiatric nurse are among those entrusted such an awesome and important responsibility. Certainly, jurors bring those life experiences to the process. But it's not necessary to publish their names. …

"So how did the decision to publish the list of the jurors' names happen? All I can say is that we lost our perspective. In being aggressive on a big story we rushed to a very bad decision."

In my opinion, the Westchester County Journal News similarly rushed to a very bad decision, as did the website that published the names and addresses of the newspapers' employees. (Didn't some wise man once say that two wrongs don't make a right?"

In training many young reporters over the years, I've always tried to stress the journalistic tenets of accuracy and fairness. In fact, these were the first two words written on a chalkboard at a Chatfield College journalism class taught by longtime Enquirer editor Jim Rohrer more than 20 years ago.

Again, just because something is public record does not automatically qualify it for publication in terms of accuracy and fairness. A crime victim's name often accompanies a police or court report. Should a newspaper add to the victim's grief by publishing his or her name? Of course not.

While the National Rifle Association and others have sought to keep concealed carry permit owners' names confidential, I'm not sure that I agree with this approach, either. These permits are applied for and granted through public offices which must maintain accurate records. Part of that record maintenance must include the names of permit owners, as well as the appropriate checks and balances of public record scrutiny.

I will concede to the NRA that in the vast majority of cases, the public release of this personal information serves no public interest and could – intentionally or unintentionally – put law-abiding citizens at risk. (Just as naming the jurors in a murder trial could put them and their families at risk.)

The final question from a member of the Breakfast Club was this: Did I think the newspaper was following a directive from its corporate ownership?

In a word, no.

For one thing, if a media company of Gannett's size wanted to publish the names of concealed carry permit owners and if there were a corporate mandate to do so, why not start with USA Today? More likely, this was a poor decision by an individual newspaper and its editorial staff.

And just for the record, I am happy to live in an area where there is absolutely no doubt where the red dots and blue dots will appear on the map. (Everywhere.)

In our neck of the woods – where we have more red and blue dots than a Smurf with the measles, an armed society remains a polite society.

Rory Ryan is publisher of The Highland County Press.