The Herald Times fires back

And misses by a wide margin, but that’s okay.  In light of recent criticism of their handgun carry permit database, the HTO published an editorial which “rebuts” all the points made by pro-gunners by saying “nuh-uh” and then calling the NRA a “big meanie”.  I haven’t actually blockquoted and ripped an editor in a while, so let us see if I can shake the dust off.  Here goes…

The NRA used its muscle against The Herald-Times last Tuesday, sending to its supporters an e-mail that was widely misunderstood by those who received it.

The e-mail took issue with the database published on HeraldTimesOnline.com that included minimal information about personal protection handgun permits held by people in Indiana. The NRA said the database treated law-abiding gun owners like sex offenders.

Translation: “The NRA is MEAN”.  In all seriousness, that’s just whining.  I just felt the need to point out that if you can’t take the heat, HTO maybe you should stay out of the database.

What a vast majority of the NRA supporters who contacted the H-T didn’t realize was that the data we made available to the public was much, much different than any information the state would make available on sex offenders. The comparison was inaccurate and incendiary.

Incendiary yes, but it was perfectly accurate.  The comparison wasn’t about the nature of the data published, but rather that you felt it was necessary to group law abiding citizens into a database so people could search said database and see how many handgun permit holders lived in their neighborhood.  The comparison was made even more apt when you originally placed the database in your “Crimes” section on the website, suggesting that the presence of handgun permit holders presented a criminal/safety issue.

A vast majority of them misunderstood, from what the NRA had sent them, that we planned to publish names and addresses, which was never under consideration.

Note: he blames the NRA for this, although having seen the NRA-ILA alert, it was never suggested nor implied by NRA that names or addresses would be published.  In fact, great lengths were gone to by myself and others to insure that this was common knowledge.  Way2Fail, HTO.

The article closes out with the usual shots at permit holders, that we’re paranoid about societal breakdown which is why we have guns, some of us are meanies, NRA members are angry, the usual tripe.

The problem isn’t that the published this editorial, it’s that the editorial is total crap.  This is the same line of reasoning that the editorial staff at the HTO has been sticking to since I emailed them, since Jim at 2nd Amendment Patriots talked to them – they maintain that their database is harmless and doesn’t endanger anyone; they further state that it’s not really like calling permit holders dangerous people.  In spite of all the contrary evidence presented by the thousands of pro-gun Hoosiers that have called in, they’re sticking to their lie.

9 comments for “The Herald Times fires back

  1. Tam
    December 8, 2009 at 09:30

    Screw contacting the paper’s staff, everybody needs to be contacting the paper’s advertisers. Then the editors can do an in-depth investigative report on the state’s unemployment benefits system while they freeze in the dark.

  2. December 8, 2009 at 09:55

    I like where your head is at on that. Also, contact state legislators so we can prevent this kind of bullcrap from continuing

  3. Freiheit
    December 8, 2009 at 10:06

    How is the fight going one level up from HTO?

    After all they are publishing something thats public record anyway. What have the IN legislators and governor said about listing permit holders as public record??

  4. December 8, 2009 at 11:23

    The newspaper’s tepid response makes me think of Joe Huffman’s “Jews In The Attic” test. What if we replaced this:

    “A vast majority of them misunderstood, from what the NRA had sent them, that we planned to publish names and addresses, which was never under consideration.”

    with this:

    “A vast majority of them misunderstood, from what B’nai Brith had sent them, that we planned to publish names and addresses of Jews, which was never under consideration.”

  5. December 8, 2009 at 11:35

    ^ We’re not going to publish names and addresses of the Jews. We’re just making them wear yellow stars so you’ll know if there are Jews on your street.

  6. December 8, 2009 at 13:46

    Stuff like this is one of the reasons I’m glad I no longer live in Indiana. This isn’t the first newspaper in IN to pull this particularly offensive stunt, and it certainly won’t be the last, unless the law is changed.

    Tamara’s right. After the first go-round when the newspaper basically flipped you the bird, the next step should have been to elevate your complaints to the advertisers.

  7. December 8, 2009 at 22:52

    I don’t understand why you’re surprised. They’re journalists. I’ve yet to read a newspaper story on a subject in which I was familiar that wasn’t riddled with mistakes.
    Why should their story on the Personal Protection Permit database be any different?
    Whether the story is on politics, the economy, science, automobiles, pharmaceuticals, etc … they routinely miss the mark.
    I quit taking the Indy paper several years ago because it was a waste of time.

  8. Jill
    December 8, 2009 at 23:59

    So, I went through all of the hyperlinks to yourself that you provide in all of your posts for this travesty, and other than direct email contacts for the paper, I can’t find a link to the database that you decry.

    I’m on your side, and after having clicked every back link, I’m kind of perterbed at having searched the bloomington online myself, and found that site so unorganized that nothinig can be be reasonably found on it, I ask; what difference does this make?

    And I’m pretty dissapointed you provided no links for anything other than harrassment.

    Shoddy.

  9. December 9, 2009 at 08:27

    Jill – one of the reasons that papers will publish databases like this is specifically to generate traffic. I had to make the difficult editorial decision on whether or not to link to them directly and thus grant their traffic wish, or to simply inform without linking.

    I chose the latter because the goal here is to cost the HTO money, and linking to them drives pageviews to their site which help their ad revenue.

Comments are closed.