It is an issue that every news organization will inevitably face: to print or not to print.

This very paper grappled with that dilemma in February, when the Editorial Board decided to publish the controversial cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammad wearing a bomb as a turban. Supporters believed it was necessary to provide the public with the image, regardless of how offensive it may have been. Better that they know, it was argued, than the paper be accused of holding back content from its readers. What about information that is not offensive, but rather potentially dangerous to publish?

The New York Times is facing possible indictment after printing two articles that some argue could jeopardize the safety of Americans. The first article, published in December 2005, detailed a National Security Agency program that would allow eavesdropping on U.S. communications overseas without warrants. The second was a report about how the government is using a banking group called "Swift" to track international financial transactions in an effort to catch terrorists. Both are plans that the administration hopes will deter future terrorist attacks on the U.S.

This dilemma has plagued editors forever. On one hand, there is the constitutionally protected freedom to give citizens the information they need in a functioning democracy. On the other, there is the need to exercise responsible caution in revealing national secrets — especially when doing so might cost lives.

During the Kennedy administration, the New York Times decided against printing secret information about the pending Bay of Pigs invasion. After all was said and done, the invasion was a failure and editors regretted holding back — the paper decided not to divulge invasion plans because the government argued it would cause the invasion to fail. President Kennedy later said he also regretted the Times' decision not to publish.

More than 40 years later, the New York Times is facing scrutiny for similar reasons. Critics believe that, by publishing information about the plans, the paper is divulging sensitive national secrets and consequently helping terrorists.

Reader reaction to the issues raised by the Times was mixed.

One reader wrote: "Your editorial 'Patriotism and the Press' brings into play the concept of 'could have' versus 'should have.' Could you print the story of the secret anti-terrorism program in question? Yes. Should you have? No."

Others echoed my own sentiments about the issue, and were supportive of the journalists who decided to divulge the information. These are the same readers who continue to question how much other information the government is keeping from the public.

In the case of the cartoon, I disagree with the decision to publish. It seemed unnecessary to print an image that readers, if they wanted, could have found within seconds on the Internet. Printing the image in a respectable publication angered me and seemed to be an unnecessary use of power by the editors.

My stance changes, though, when considering the two New York Times articles. I commend the paper on the decision to publish and am thankful that the press continues to be a watchdog of our government's policies.

I do not feel less safe because of the reports, and I am positive that the information in the articles was nothing the terrorists didn't already suspect.

Terrorist organizations likely already knew the U.S. would be tracking telephone calls and financial transactions. These measures are nothing new; most counterterrorism programs involve one or both of these methods to help countries learn more about their enemies.

It is also important to realize that the decision by the Times was not made lightly. Information about the programs was held for more than a year while editors took the time to evaluate government objectives. Sensitive details were still omitted from the final copy, to the relief of the administration.

Government officials will never stop trying to influence what appears on the front page of newspapers or on the evening news. It is their job, after all, to do everything in their power to persuade Americans they are in full control of any potential threats to the U.S.

But it is the job of the media — and of journalists worldwide — to continue to challenge what people tell them they should and should not publish and to make these difficult decisions for the sake of the public.

Emily Friedman ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in journalism and legal studies.