Conservative Media Outraged That NYT Published Darren Wilson’s Street Name

Conservative media outlets were outraged that the New York Times published the name of the street where Ferguson, Mo. police Officer Darren Wilson and his new wife live outside of St. Louis.

The Times revealed Monday that Wilson quietly married fellow officer Barbara Spradling last month. The story identified the town and the street where Wilson and Spradling own a home, but did not specify an exact address. A photograph of the couple’s marriage certificate also appeared in the article.

Fox News host Sean Hannity took a shot at the newspaper Tuesday night, declaring that “if anything happens to that man, his family, or that home, the culpability is with them.”

Fox News host Howard Kurtz also wrote a column Wednesday accusing the newspaper of endangering Wilson’s life by publishing the information.

“Given the racial animosity unleashed by Brown’s death, given the rioting and the looting and the stores that were set afire, how can a news organization make it easier for some crazy zealot to track down Wilson?” he wrote.

Breitbart published an item on the street name disclosure, but refused to link to the Times’ story or reprint the information, calling it a “malicious move” on the newspaper’s part.

But conservative journalist Charles C. Johnson had by far the most extreme reaction to the Times publishing Wilson’s information at his fledgling news site GotNews.com.

Writing that he “strenuously objects to publishing the addresses of individuals who are being targeted with death threats,” Johnson retaliated by publishing what he says are the addresses of Julie Bosman and Campbell Robertson, who wrote the Times item on Wilson’s marriage.

“Why do journalists think they are beyond examination?” he wrote. “How does it advance the story to know where Darren Wilson and his newly wed live?”

The Times has not removed the street name from its article (TPM also originally republished the photo of Wilson’s marriage license. It has been removed). It did remove the photograph of Wilson’s marriage certificate, however, and appended the following editor’s note on Tuesday:

An earlier version of this post included a photograph that contained information that should not have been made public. The image has been removed.