Posted on 12/01/2014 10:37:41 AM PST by raptor22
Media Malfeasance: Short of handing local rioters a locator map, the newspaper of record provides enough information to find the home of the police officer some still accuse of murdering Michael Brown for no good reason.
We're not sure what the New York Times was thinking when it published an item last Monday by Julie Bosman on the recent marriage of Officer Darren Wilson along with the town they lived in and street they lived on.
The street in the small St. Louis suburb they live in is only two blocks long, and the piece had almost all the information for some loony tune to find it. The Times didn't print the street number, but that detail could be probably picked up from online sources with a search using Wilson's name and the street and town name.
Slate helped out any crazy that might be interested with a photo of the modest red brick home, lest they fire-bomb the wrong residence.
We might understand the publishing of the town name, but what purpose did printing the street serve?
Philip Corbett, the Times' associate managing editor for standards, which it claims to have, emailed a self-serving explanation for doing it to Erik Wemple at the Washington Post — to wit: it had already been done.
"The Times did not 'reveal' anything here," Corbett said. "The name of the street was widely reported as far back as August, including in the Washington Post."
True enough, an Aug. 15 Post article did mention the name of the street in a story shortly after the shooting of Michael Brown and the releasing of Wilson's name.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
Stop defending the indefensible!
Ferguson Ping
"I have them written down and I'm sending them Christmas cards..."
” THIS IS WRONG.”
But you would hit it anyway, right?
I’m just saying...
FERGUSON PING
They know better but are unmoved by potential consequences.
And how can they complain if they receive hundreds of cards, essentially saying "In this Christmas season, you can be sure I'm thinking of you"?
Claim: The New York Times revealed Darren Wilson's current residence address, then redacted it.The reason snopes claims this is false, is because Wilson left the house and is living elsewhere.FALSE
But Wilson still OWNS the house. Will insurance cover him if the house is torched in an act of "civil unrest"? How easy will it be to sell the house listed as being the home of Darren Wilson?
Snopes sucks.
A few years ago, the New York Times published an article about the town where former Vice-President Cheney lives, giving his address and mentioning that the birdhouse at the head of the driveway contains a surveillance camera. This bit of help for terrorists was in the Travel section, supposedly for tourists.
The New York Times is without scruples. If there are any honest writers on its staff, they should quit and get other jobs.
“The New York Times will swirl down the drain and likely will not even eixist as a newspaper in the coming years.”
Then again, if the revolutionary left has its way, it may be the new official American Pravda of the future.
IMHO
Learned at the feet of the Queen scumball.
Ahem. Rules, gentlemen ...... foto{s}, pls? CZJ Rule?
It makes a person gun shy.
All it means is, the site doesn 't permit linking.
Did you see the photo of "widdle" Mike "Swisher Sweets" Brown flashing gang sign that FReeper isthisnickcool snagged? Good get, problem-solver.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.