Pee Wee journalism

I would like to comment on the recent article you printed concerning Paul Reuben’s recent arrest (BDN, July 29). Congratulations for lowering yourself to tabloid standards. There was no reason for this article to be published and certainly no one benefited from it, except, of course, the Associated Press. It’s not the fact that you printed such trash, but it’s how you went about it. Why you chose to single out Pee Wee Herman is quite obvious: He is a celebrity and celebrities sell.

I took notice of how you chose to leave the names of the three other individuals undisclosed. Does that mean that once on individual becomes widely known by the public that that gives the media the OK to report everything they do, even if it means ruining their careers? This article was hardly newsworthy and I am quite sure under other circumstances it might never have been printed.

I hope that next time you have a spot you need to fill in your paper you print something worth reading, instead of using your power as the media to go celebrity-bashing. Amy M. David Patten