New York Times Defends Decision to Publish Street Name of Officer Darren Wilson's Home — Here's Why

The New York Times defended on Tuesday their decision to publish the street name of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson's home, contending the information had already been reported on.

"The story mentions only the name of the street where the couple have a house and that street has been widely reported on," the Times' head of communications Eileen Murphy told the Washington Examiner.

(Image source: Shutterstock.com) 

The address information was published in a Monday story about Wilson's recent wedding. It did not provide his specific address, but noted the street and St. Louis suburb where he owns a home.

The following is a redacted version of the two paragraphs the Times has come under fire for:

Officer Wilson and Officer Spradling own a home together on _________, a St. Louis suburb about a half-hour drive from Ferguson.

They have scarcely been seen there since Mr. Brown was killed on Aug. 9. Neighbors said that within a few days of the shooting, Officer Wilson and Officer Spradling abruptly left their home.

The Times also published an unedited version of Wilson's marriage license, removing it after noticing an address printed on the document. That address, however, was for a law firm based in Missouri where the license appears to have been issued, according to the Examiner.

The street name of Wilson's address, however, remained in the Times story at the time of publication.

—

Follow Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) on Twitter