I fail to see the value in the new policy of printing the names of people cited for minor infractions, unless your goal is to stir up trouble in a smalltown and to make additional problems for people who, it appears, already have plenty. 

And what of the possible social effect on these people’s children, spouses, relatives, and friends? Are these folks just “collateral damage?”

The Leader’s stated justification for this decision feels insufficient, tone deaf, even callous. 

Though this information is a matter of public record, and I’m sure there are interested parties who spend the time to locate it, it seems simply mean-spirited to go to extra lengths to highlight this information, like placing our neighbors in stocks in the public square. 

And the police blotter has always (anonymously) revealed the kinds of infractions that are common locally, so this hardly improves access to “statistics for local crime, public safety and the types of offenses taxpayer funds help support [sic].” These reports are not statistics, just gossip.

Perhaps, most troubling, the policy seems not to be evenly applied. The (one supposes) transient man picked up for drunk-and-disorderly is named; the speeding, distracted tourist fiddling with the GPS is not. If public safety is your concern, I’m more worried about the guy in the car.

This nation currently sees enough bullying, vilifying, and divisive, classist rhetoric without our little hometown paper adding to the mix. 

Is this required to sell newspapers? Because after nearly 20 years of subscribing, I’m now tempted to quit buying it.

Please stick with useful reportage about the positive, the quirky, the questionable, and yes, even the controversial things going on in our town. No need for public shaming. 

Editor’s note: The Leader does not print the names of those who receive citations, only those who were arrested.