The photo of Saddam Hussein with a noose around his neck that ran in The Advertiser on Dec. 30 elicited very few complaints, but it's worth discussing why we decided to use it across four columns on the front page.

Most newspapers across the country carried the news of Saddam's execution, but because of the late hour, many did not have an opportunity to use a photo that showed Saddam in his final minutes.

We knew at our 2:30 p.m. news meeting that the death sentence was to be carried out within the hour, and by our 5:15 p.m. meeting, we knew that Saddam was dead. We planned our lead front-page story on this historical event, but we also knew that any pictures from the scene would be controversial.

For our first edition, which is distributed to the Neighbor Islands, we used the only photo that was available: Muslim-Americans in Dearborn, Mich., reacting to the news of Saddam's death.

Editors had already discussed which photos would or would not be used from the gallows. A photo of Saddam hanging would not be used under any circumstance, nor would an image of his dead body. A shot of his body completely covered after the execution might be considered as a last resort.

Forty minutes before our final deadline, CNN aired a video clip taken off Iraqi television of Saddam being led to the gallows and talking with his executioners while a noose was placed around his neck. A "frame grab" of hooded guards placing the heavy rope around his neck moved on The Associated Press wire. AP also transmitted a picture of Saddam, obviously dead with his neck twisted at a strange angle.

We chose the first photo and quickly discarded the second. Why? Because it was news. Certainly it was disturbing, but it worked in telling the story at the time the paper was ready to be printed. One letter writer called it "completely unnecessary and violent." I think it is necessary to show the photo that best tells the story, however you personally may feel about capital punishment. There was nothing violent about the picture, but it was chilling. You couldn't help but feel some emotion (revulsion, relief, a mixture of both?) knowing what is about to happen next.

Was it inappropriate for children to see? Perhaps. A colleague said he stood in line at a McDonald's as a boy, perhaps 8, looked at the picture and asked his mother why the man had a rope around his neck. The mother responded that the man had done bad things and was being punished.

But I would raise this similar issue: Should we have not run pictures of airplanes crashing into the Twin Towers because we didn't want our readers' children witnessing such a nightmare, especially one that was going to be replayed on television over and over? I don't think there's a newspaper in the country, including ours, that did not run those images. You'd be derelict as a news organization not to.

It's also true that kids (or adults) could hardly avoid seeing the footage of Saddam at the gallows on their television screens. And if people were really curious, they could go to YouTube, a Web site showcasing videos, and get footage of the entire hanging. That didn't really play into our decision, but we should always be aware of what the rest of the world is watching.

Not everything that appears in the paper is going to be lighthearted and, indeed, we are often criticized that the picture we paint of society is exceedingly negative and needs more balance.

I was not in town at the time the decisions were made, but I would have made the exact same call as the editors who were in charge, and I know they had a thorough discussion of all the issues involved.