Via Facebook, the Connecticut Pro Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists circulated this write-up Jim Romenesko did on a remarkably bad judgement call by by The Stamford Advocate (note: The News Times and Stamford Advocate are both part of the Hearst Connecticut Media Group):
Shouldn’t it be standard operating procedure at this point to make sure there aren't gun ads next to school shooting-related stories?
Short answer...yes.
Romenesko contacted the Advocate for comment and received the following response from Hearst Connecticut Media Group executive editor Barbara Roessner.
UPDATE: Roessner sent this email:
Our newspapers should not be running gun ads — including ads for antique and collectible gun shows — next to stories about Sandy Hook. It’s insensitive, and it shouldn’t have happened. It was an oversight, and we apologize for it. We have taken steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again.
To their credit, the people at Hearst understand that it was probably not the best move to place a gun ad next to anything related to the shooting in Sandy Hook...it's just too bad that this happened in the first place.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
Via Facebook, the Connecticut Pro Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists circulated this write-up Jim Romenesko did on a remarkably bad judgement call by by The Stamford Advocate (note: The News Times and Stamford Advocate are both part of the Hearst Connecticut Media Group):
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
