The Journal News responded to the news of their erroneous map by blaming the county records office for giving them what they asked for. But they did create a new map with all the old, and mostly erroneous addresses and stated that "some ... may not represent current gun owners." (Interestingly, they don't provide that caveat for any of their other maps of addresses - implying that they all represent current gun owners).
This kind of reaction to an egregious error brings to mind several questions about the "vaunted layers of editors and fact-checkers" in the news business, and/or the motives of the paper.
- Were they ignorant of the rules for permits, and unaware that permits never expired in that county?
- Did they bother to ask anyone whether the permits list was current and accurate, or even look at the sample and measure definitions to find out?
- Did anyone independently verify any of the listed addresses?
- Did The Journal News know that most of the provided addresses were "historic," yet still included problematic listings to make the story more sensational?
- Did anyone remember the basic semantics principle that "the map is not the place"? That is, the paper got addresses, yet made claims of current gun ownership about the people who currently live at the address given on the permit. Did no one realize that the permit holders might have moved, no longer owned gun(s), died, or that there might be other people at the address other than the gun owner? Or that the permit might have an incorrect address (for reasons ranging from simple clerical error to intentional deception)?
That's my opinion anyway.
Source - Newspaper's Gun Map Woefully Inaccurate, Newser.com
Map: Where are the Gun Owners in Your Neighborhood, lohud.com (The Journal News online site)