Clemson student newspaper doesn't run Watkins arrest story

I was the editor of my student paper, and it wasn't until I was in a daily that I actually knew how to get a police report.

 

and "broadcast journalists" won't mention a no-hitter while it's taking place ... color me not-all-that-shocked on either account.

 

I think its the best policy. You get arrested, you've spent time in police custody, you're been deprived of your freedom for a time, short or long. You're in the system. It's public record and its public record for a reason. Anyone can access it. If you don't want your life to be impacted by an arrest then don't get arrested. Thinking it'll be a secret that won't "impact your life" if its not in the newspaper is foolhardy.

There are no sides to the story. Here's the arrest, here's the charge. Every American knows they're innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I don't think being in the log constitutes public shaming and I don't buy that as an argument not to run arrests.

 

Just because you can print something doesn't mean you should. Plenty of information is "public". But everyday, newspapers make editorial decisions not to print the bulk of it. What makes police logs different? One could easily posit reasons for printing some of it--say, public safety--but I'm having a hard time seeing why a blanket policy makes sense (aside from easing the burden on journalists at the expense of someone's reputation).

"If you don't want your life to be impacted by an arrest than don't get arrested."?!?! That's an awfully cavalier attitude for someone in a profession that should be skeptical of power and those that wield it.