As an editor, I often struggle with issues surrounding what the public NEEDS to know, versus what they WANT to know.

If we print what people WANT to know, they'll buy papers. But at some point what people want to know drops perilously close to the level of gossip, in which I prefer not to indulge. Obviously gossip is big business, as evidenced by the number of celebrity gossip magazines, tabloids and Web sites. I am not at all convinced that the world needs to know what Mel Gibson said to his girlfriend, or who Miley Cyrus is dating. I'm not even sure why the world WANTS to know.

In no area of news does this conflict become more pronounced for me than in the reporting of police news.

No two ways about it, people want to get the dirt on their neighbors. If this was the only value to reporting police news, however, I feel comfortable saying that The Citizen would not be printing this information. Having practiced criminal defense law, I understand the circumstances that play into the commission of some crimes. I get that some charges will be thrown out if the person hires a decent attorney because I can tell from the police reports that there is insufficient probable cause or a search was bad. In short, I can see both sides of the story.

The other side of the story, though, is that people really do need to be aware of what is going on in their neighborhoods. They need to know that someone is breaking into cars and houses so that they can take precautions. They need to know that there is a suspected sex offender roaming the streets.

They also can use that information to help the police. If you are aware that your neighbor was arrested for driving under the influence and you see him jump into the car and take off, you can call police and maybe save someone's life.

We also hope that, at least occasionally, someone's name being printed in the police news will actually shame that person into realizing he needs help, and getting it.

The issue of what people want to know versus what they need to know weighed heavily on me this week as we prepared the story of the arrest of a Bellevue Council member. There will be some who will say that there are many arrests for driving under the influence that never get the front page coverage this story did. They will be correct.

A number of factors came into play in making the decision to handle the story as we did. First and foremost was the fact that she is a public official. Character and judgment count.

We also considered the involvement of drugs, and the presence of a child, as factors that called for a more heavy-handed treatment of this story.

Finally, there is some evidence to support the allegation that she received preferential treatment from the Bellevue Police Department. Her arrest was not immediately released to the media, as the arrests of others were and always have been. In fact, the media were instead told that absolutely nothing of any significance happened in Bellevue on that particular day. That clearly was not a true statement. I also can tell you, from my prior criminal court experience, that the criminal complaint is missing a whole lot of charges that frequently are filed under similar circumstances: leaving the scene of an accident, endangering the welfare of a minor, recklessly endangering another person, careless driving, reckless driving, to name a few.

I like and respect Bellevue Police Chief Matt Sentner. He's smart, and he's made considerable improvements in the department that benefit the entire Borough of Bellevue. I do believe that he made a mistake in handling this case, but that it was only that -- a mistake, and one that he will not make again.

The one thing all of us NEED to know is that elected officials do not get special treatment, particularly in a case in which the welfare of a child is so prominently at risk.