GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-25-2007, 23:52   #1
TScottW99
NRA Life Member
 
TScottW99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Roanoke, VA
Posts: 3,111
Send a message via Yahoo to TScottW99
The Roanoke Times apologizes

The Roanoke Times apologizes

Lessons learned in database incident
More discussion and thought should have gone into the decision to publish a database of concealed carry holders in the state.

We heard from literally thousands of people after our decision two weeks ago to post an online database of people in the state permitted to carry concealed handguns. Many people presented rational objections.

Many others responded with personal threats of violence and acts of intimidation -- responses we declined to publish.

The difficulty we've faced since is how to respond to the rational objections without validating the abusive tactics and attacks waged against this newspaper and the columnist who wrote a piece linked to the database.

Amid the firestorm of criticism, we've re-examined our decision-making process and reflected on the valid criticisms.

We've come to some conclusions.

First, we had a legal right to post the database. These were public records, legally obtained.

In some journalistic circles, that would be enough. The Washington Post's Marc Fisher praised the decision to post the information and accused The Roanoke Times of caving in to criticism when we decided to pull the database.

But upon reflection, we wish we had more fully discussed the potential ramifications before we made this decision. Dozens of concealed permit holders expressed heartfelt fear because of the exposure of what they believed was private information.

We gave insufficient thought and discussion to the potential that crime victims, law enforcement officers and domestic violence victims might be put at risk if their addresses were published.

Though many of our critics believe that the database handed burglars a shopping list of households with guns and abusers a list of their victims, no one can point to a single incident where similar publications led to a crime.

But we didn't know that until after the database was published. The potential for harm is something we should have given far greater thought to in making the decision.

For our failure to do so, The Roanoke Times apologizes.

We also regret that there was not a more compelling public purpose -- beyond illustrating how the Freedom of Information Act works -- behind the decision to post the database.

There are vital reasons these records should remain open.

But those reasons were not well illuminated -- or even particularly well served -- by the publication of the entire database.

The public should be able to monitor how well various jurisdictions screen concealed carry applicants.

So, yes, we made mistakes. The process for vetting this decision was not as thorough as it should have been.

Those mistakes, though, in no way justify the outrageous and threatening nature of much of the response. Very early on, a rational discussion of this issue became all but impossible.

It was extremely important that we not allow the unacceptable antics of the fringe to distract us from a careful examination of our own decision-making.

We want to assure our readers that, where we erred, we will strive not to repeat our mistakes. And we will continue to advocate passionately for the free flow of information that is the lifeblood of an open society.

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/110214
__________________
"When you're afraid, keep your mind on what you have to do. And if you have been thoroughly prepared, you will not be afraid."

- Dale Carnegie
TScottW99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2007, 03:40   #2
LittleLebowski
Urban Achiever!
 
LittleLebowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Northern VA (WY native)
Posts: 1,265
I note Trejbal didn't write that. Not exactly what I'd call an apology.
LittleLebowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2007, 12:16   #3
iiibbb
Senior Member
 
iiibbb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,791


It was public information before.

Again, I don't care if people know I have a permit... but I've never been keen on online parings of my name and address, especially with something controversial.

All things considered, this article is a reasonable response to the controversy.

It's a shame people had to threaten the guy. We should've kept the high ground.
iiibbb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2007, 18:52   #4
Bonk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 7,133
Those mistakes, though, in no way justify the outrageous and threatening nature of much of the response. Very early on, a rational discussion of this issue became all but impossible.

Oh BS. I read almost all of the 400+ of the responses on the RT's website (a waste of a few hours, admittedly), and only a tiny handful were even close to threatening. Most of them were exceedingly polite, indignant perhaps but still polite, and far more polite than that cretin they call an editorial writer deserves.
Bonk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2007, 19:06   #5
Hunterjbb
Registered User
 
Hunterjbb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Midlothian Va.
Posts: 560
Send a message via ICQ to Hunterjbb
Bonk

Quote:
Originally posted by Bonk
Those mistakes, though, in no way justify the outrageous and threatening nature of much of the response. Very early on, a rational discussion of this issue became all but impossible.

Oh BS. I read almost all of the 400+ of the responses on the RT's website (a waste of a few hours, admittedly), and only a tiny handful were even close to threatening. Most of them were exceedingly polite, indignant perhaps but still polite, and far more polite than that cretin they call an editorial writer deserves.
Perception is in the eye of the beholder.. I read a great many of them and i'd agree the vast majority were not inflamtory at all, however that's you and i reading them, not a "journalist". Evidently they read things differently then "normal" folk..

There were some downright stupid responses and although the pro gun folks had the initiative there's always a few.. and it was squandered.. in my opinion.. Hey at least they stepped up a little and apologized..

I would hope that this leads to the list being restricted to some degree..

Jeff.
Hunterjbb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2007, 20:09   #6
sigpro357
Senior Member
 
sigpro357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Virginia
Posts: 4,193
Someone would be a fool to make threats against them on the internet. It's very easy to trace IP adresses servers etc, and locate where a threat is originiated. I would bet any threats they got were via the mail or phone calls.
sigpro357 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2007, 20:26   #7
MrWithasee
Not playing
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Virginia
Posts: 674
That was the crappiest "apology" I've heard in quite some time. He might as well have said

"We are sorry that you did not like what we did, but we'd do it again if we thought we might get away with it."
MrWithasee is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 20:40.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,542
478 Members
1,064 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42