Why the Charlotte Observer Collecting Private Citizen Email Addresses is Wrong

Julie Rose of WFAE is reporting The Charlotte Observer is using a little-known loophole in North Carolina’s public records law to harvest tens of thousands of citizen emails from the City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County and other municipal governments.

In all, the Observer is harvesting more than 20,000 email addresses from local government email distribution lists, WFAE reports.

Signed up to receive Park and Rec newsletter? The Observer can take your email address. Sent an inquiry to the tax department? Emailed solid waste services to ask about recycling pick-up? The Observer can take your email, too.

Observer Editor Rick Thames says the email addresses won’t be used to spam you. Instead, the newspaper will use them to ask area residents “if they would like to occasionally advise us on how we’re reporting and what they would like to know more from their government and more about their community,” Thames told WFAE.

I don’t buy it.

As a marketer, I’m skeptical of Thames’s claims this won’t be used for marketing, especially since the public records request came from a marketing staffer, not an editor or reporter.

This request raises some very serious concerns:

Shouldn’t newspapers be watchdogs against government abuse, not the other way around? When city leaders need to warn citizens about something the newspaper’s up to, something’s not working.
This isn’t in the spirit of permission-based marketing. Even if the Observer is within its legal rights to obtain and use the emails, that doesn’t mean it should. Permission-based marketing is about consumer choice. Citizens did not give the Observer permission to contact them.
This violates the relationship between Charlotte residents and their government. When a citizen provides an email to a municipal agency, it is with the assumption the email address will not be shared with third parties. The Observer is manipulating a flawed law to breach that trust. It’s likely to make residents think twice about communicating with their public servants.
It’s about marketing, contrary to what Thames says. Email lists of that size are an email marketers gold mine. If you think a newspaper that’s in a steep financial decline will keep the list off limits to its own marketing department, you’re crazy.
And for that matter, what’s to say The Observer won’t sell that list to advertisers, or give them access to it as part of an ad deal?
If the newspaper wants to build better journalism, as Thames claims the email acquisition will enable it to do, it should stop laying off professional journalists. It should also compensate any citizen journalist who provides content.
The Observer already has a way to contact readers. It’s called a newspaper. If the city’s email lists are the best way to ask readers for feedback on the Observer’s reporting, maybe we oughtta question how effective newspapers are?

I’m a newspaper guy from back in the day. My major was in journalism, with a concentration in print. I worked at city newspapers. My heart is with them, but my gut says The Observer’s on the wrong side here.

But what do you think? Share your thoughts via the comments.

http://cltblog.com/ Desiree Kane

Honestly, this is what makes me sick:

Shouldn’t newspapers be watchdogs against government abuse, not the other way around? When city leaders need to warn citizens about something the newspaper’s up to, something’s not working.

AND

This violates the relationship between Charlotte residents and their government. When a citizen provides an email to a municipal agency, it is with the assumption the email address will not be shared with third parties. The Observer is manipulating a flawed law to breach that trust. It’s likely to make residents think twice about communicating with their public servants.

I think you’re spot-on, Scott. The whole situation is, for lack of a better word, SKETCHY.

Great post!
Jenks1970

I am someone who subscribes to the city and county in order to get the agendas for their meetings. Earlier this week I received an e-mail from the city letting me know that the Observer had requested and received my e-mail address. I then checked my spam/junk box and what did I find? An e-mail (ALREADY!) from the Observer. I quickly opted out and unsubscribed to anything from them and now find myself highly irritated that they would even presume that I would want an initial e-mail from them.

And honestly, isn’t this considered spamming—e-mail from someone to whom I never gave my e-mail address? I guess it is one way for them to save money…not having to buy a list from someone else!
Christine

Couldn’t agree more Scott. I was befuddled when I received the alert from City of Charlotte yesterday. Charlotte Observer has found another great way to exacerbate distrust.
Pingback: UPoR’s Email List Stumble | The Meck Deck
Pingback: Tweets that mention Why the Charlotte Observer Collecting Private Citizen Email Addresses is Wrong | Media Emerging -- Topsy.com
http://mediaemerging.com Scott Hepburn

“…exacerbate distrust.” That’s exactly what this comes down to. The Observer was certainly within their rights to acquire these emails. But valuing your readers means respecting them, and this move betrays that respect.
http://mediaemerging.com Scott Hepburn

It’s sad, really. The newspaper business model collapses, and in the frenzy to find a way to survive, they lose sight of their mission.

This is what happens when “satisfy the shareholders” is a higher priority than “do what is right.”
http://mediaemerging.com Scott Hepburn

Building a relationship is slow and difficult. Destroying one takes a split second. There’s a lesson here for any business that is sincere about wanting to build relationships with customers.

Thanks for sharing your story!
http://twitter.com/WCooksey Warren Cooksey

This is a reminder of how frustrating both law and reporting can be.

Let’s not lose sight of the fact that laws that ensure public records are available to the public are good things. The burden is on government to define strictly what should *not* be made public. However, the pace of lawmaking is generally glacial, so even technological improvements now considered routine are not always addressed correctly.

That’s the legal frustration, but I wouldn’t call it a “loophole.” Such a pejorative term should be preserved for legal technicalities that prevent records that should be public from being made public.

Frustration with reporting kicks in with the last paragraph of the WFAE story. Wake County has *not* simply “decided not to hand over email addresses in digital format.” It had to get special legislation from the General Assembly to restrict how they make email addresses available to the public. Yesterday the N.C. League of Municipalities set a goal to extend that legislation to apply to all municipalities in the state. I’d hate for someone to hear or read that story, think that all that needs to happen is local action, then wonder why the City Council hasn’t acted already.

Fortunately (from my biased perspective), the email I’ve received on this subject and the comments to this post correctly direct anger with the Observer for making the request, not at the City for providing the emails. I give credit to the City communications staff for going above and beyond their legal obligations and creating the notification email to our citizens.
http://mediaemerging.com Scott Hepburn

Thanks for the valuable perspectives here, WC (although, you forgot the requisite “long time reader, first time commenter” radio homage…).

I agree with you that it’s impressive how residents have directed their criticism at The Observer, where it belongs in this case. The city complied with the law, as required, went the extra mile to explain the situation to residents, and is lobbying Raleigh to modernize the rules.

Appreciate you elaborating…you’re a true public servant.
Eli

>what’s to say The Observer won’t sell that list to advertisers…

What advertiser would pay for something that someone else proved could be had for free?

Also, don’t you love how you have to provide an email address just to comment? What becomes of the list that my tossaway account is going to be on now?
http://www.bitfliptech.com Matt McGlothlin

I inherently think that The Observer is a quality and trustworthy paper, but I’d rather my email address stay with the entity that collected it. The problem I have here is a really big WHAT IF … What if the Observer is bought out by a conglomerate that overrides their existing policy? The paper has been bought and sold several times in the past. I don’t know if any policies changed, but who is to say it wouldn’t with future buy outs.

Bottom line, I think it is very bad business practice to purchase or collect any email addresses from people whom have not explicitly agreed to be on the list with a few rare exceptions. This is not one of those exceptions.
http://mediaemerging.com Scott Hepburn

The Observer is already owned by a parent corporation, isn’t it? Any promises made in Charlotte mean nothing in Sacramento. I’m just sayin’…
http://mediaemerging.com Scott Hepburn

>What advertiser would pay for something that someone else proved could be had for free?

Any advertiser who realizes paying is cheaper and faster than doing the legwork on their own.

>Also, don’t you love how you have to provide an email address just to comment? What becomes of the list that my tossaway account is going to be on now?

I’m not required by law, as the City of Charlotte is, to give your email address to anyone. As such, my policy is to give it to no one.

Also, you provided your email address to me at your own discretion. The individuals whose addresses The Observer has acquired didn’t have that choice.

I apreciate your perspectives…thanks for asking tough questions. Accountability is a good thing. ;)
Pingback: E-mail info request for ‘better journalism’ « The Medium, The Message
http://www.brianhamlett.com Brian Hamlett

And lose their integrity. They can’t be looking to protect me if they’re abusing me.
Anthem

A simple reading of the Public Records Act 132 would reveal that these lists were clearly public record. One of the fundamental premises of the Act is that government is not allowed to ask the requester for what purpose the record is being sought. The Municipalities are to blame for creating an unreasonable/unlawful expectation that these lists would be confidential. I am glad the Observer is not going to use the lists for any commercial purpose, and that I can be informed by my town about relevant public notices. However, it is a dangerous and slippery slope to begin to change the laws that empower people and allow the government (local and state) to determine which legitimate public records should be released and to whom and for what purpose. This situation and the legislative reaction must be looked at with a wider historical and future view and not with just these embarrasing facts.
The market place will likely keep the Charlotte Observer from abusing this, but giving discretion to public officials about what they would like to reveal about their taxpayer funded communications or activities need serious consideration and not a knee jerk reaction by the legislature.
http://mediaemerging.com Scott Hepburn

You make a fair point that these lists were public record. And, yes, citizens could have made themselves aware of that. I’m pleased to hear the City will be more prominently displaying a privacy policy in the future.

Like you, I don’t believe it’s incumbent on the government to ask how a requester will use these records are being used. Indeed, I think we’d agree that would be overstepping the law.

The question here, in my view, is not a legal one but a strategic one and a moral one. The moral question is whether The Observer has a moral code (e.g., “We will not send unsolicited commercial emails”) that is independent of the legal code. The strategic question is whether The Observer, regardless of its core values (or lack thereof), shot itself in the foot by pissing off its public. If you respect your readers, as The Observer says it does, it’s a strategic misstep to alienate those readers by abusing your rights under the law.
Pingback: Observer: We apologize, pledge not to send emails | Blogging Master