It’s a double-edged sword. If the press is prohibited from reporting on arrests, you can end up with people just apprehended without a trace. The US certainly isn't above that, especially for "national security concerns."
I’m not sure what the right balance looks like, but it’s definitely not a straightforward issue to resolve.
I can't remember the last time I saw news reports about an arrest where the arrestee plausibly benefited from the story being publicized. Maybe Snowden (who I think was charged but not arrested)?
I think you'll find that where the state has an interest in keeping something under wraps it will be kept under wraps. Most arrest reports are of the casual voyeuristic kind, not serious journalism trying to keep the government accountable.
> I can't remember the last time I saw news reports about an arrest where the arrestee plausibly benefited from the story being publicized
Bad week to say this, given Ross Ulbricht was just pardoned. There's zero chance he would've been pardoned without all the publicity around his arrest and incarceration.
History offers plenty of other examples. Daniel Ellsberg is one of the most notable that comes to mind without spending more than a few seconds to think about it.
Is it worth it? That likely depends on how highly you prioritize the protection of liberty. It’s ultimately a personal call, and I don't mean that as a judgement one way or the other.
As publication seems necessary to help free people who should not be jailed, or to keep people from being disappeared the authorities find inconvenient, it seems some other solution should be found for the ruined lives due to publication, not that we just trade some number of ruined lives around by not publicizing.
I’m not sure what the right balance looks like, but it’s definitely not a straightforward issue to resolve.