A good question on one reader's mind this morning:

"I'm not completely sure how I feel about it, but I wonder if (The Star) should have put this man who jumped up on stage and started cursing and tearing things up while the mayor was speaking on the front page today."

That's something I just heard others inside the newsroom discussing as well. It's a perennial concern for journalists. Should The Star have run a photo and story about the man who interrupted Mayor Sly James' State of the City address, and should that photo have been on Page A1?

Civil disobedience is a grand American tradition, and many important political and societal changes have arisen from it.

But on the other hand, giving visibility the sudden ambush of the stage of one man with an inscrutable point of view -- and who could credibly have been considered a physical threat to the mayor -- could be seen as rewarding a kind of protest that I don't think most people would consider appropriate.

It's analogous also to The Star's general guidelines on reporting on protests and demonstrations. Very small protests don't generally merit a mention, but there's always a caveat: If something out of the ordinary happens, it can rise to the level of news on its own merits.

This case clearly qualifies there. But I can understand readers who question whether the front-page play was appropriate.