Gun control, media ethics, the public's 'right to know'

In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, newspapers were among the media trying to gather as much information as possible and disseminate it to the public.
The Gannett-owned Journal Times (New York) made the decision to publish the names and addresses of gun permit holders in two counties it serves shortly after the incident. It was a move that proved controversial: There was much public outcry against the decision alongside the support cited by the newspaper.
The information, which was released in the form of an interactive map, remained on the newspaper’s website for about 27 days before being removed. The newspaper has said it did not take it down because of public pressure. Rather, the data had likely been viewed by those interested and also was of the type that would go out of date, according to the Journal Times.
It is worth noting, however, that decision was made in the wake of the New York Legislature passing a bill that allowed gun permit holders to opt out of any public release of their information.
My personal belief on this issue is that a newspaper has to consider the thought that while it can do something, should it? The Open Records Act serves a great purpose, but one of the considerations in utilizing it must be whether the information invades people’s privacy. I also feel the Journal Times behaved irresponsibly in that it placed all of the gun permit holders in the same light as the Sandy Hook shooter and his mother.
Perhaps, if the newspaper had taken an additional step and compared the names and addresses of the gun permit holders to additional databases, such as those of convicted felons or police incident reports, there might have been a reason to justify the decision. Such statistical comparisons might have revealed some flaws in the system and that type of revelation would likely have better met with public approval.
I can’t help but feel, however, that all the Journal Times accomplished with its decision to publish was to provide thieves and burglars with a shopping list.
The New York Legislature isn’t the first to act in response to the media’s use of the information. In Texas, for example, the Legislature made the data secret in 2007 after the Associated Press requested information on individual lawmakers.
The main goal should be to keep as much information public as possible. But, again, just because it is public doesn’t mean we, as the media, should use the information irresponsibly or without a purpose that serves the community. And I guess that’s what bothers me the most about the Journal Times’ decision. The newspaper ran the names and addresses because it could and for no valid reason I can discern.
After all, as we discussed in class, rape victims’ names are public in a court of law. That doesn’t mean we should go and shout them from the rooftops without a good reason to do so.
(One of my media ethics class assignments, spring 2013)