Otterblog

I took a call today from a thoughtful person who wanted to know why we published the address of Robert Watson in the newspaper (He’s the teacher charged with more than a dozen counts of sex offenses involving students). The caller’s belief was that publishing the address was unfair and hurtful and embarrassing to his family, that it draws unwanted attention to the neighborhood and that it could lead to a vigilante situation, if somebody wanted to take the law into their own hands.

Newspapers have been publishing the addresses of those charged with crime for as long as I’ve been in the business. It’s so accepted that it’s reflexive. We do it because we always do it. And because we can do it, because that information is part of the arrest warrant. But does that make it right?

I think it’s proper for us to publish addresses of local people charged with crimes. First, an address clears up ambiguity about which person was charged. The phone book lists a half-dozen Robert Watsons in Forsyth County.

Second, crime is a serious matter. And sex crimes are among the most serious. People ought to know what their neighbors are up to. That applies in middle/upper class neighborhoods as well as poor neighborhoods. A two-tier system that used an income test or a ZIP code as a decision on whether to publish an address would be unworkable and unfair.

Third, embarassment and notoriety are unfortunate side effects of publication. But trying to gauge it and set policies around it would be impossible. What embarrasses me might not embarrass you and vice versa. This is not to just throw up our hands and say “We’re done with it all.” Just a sense that as a first step we ought to do what we think is right rather than try to guess people’s reaction to what we think is right.