I have acquired among my colleagues the reputation for being rather a prude when it comes to what goes into this newspaper.

We don't print some words you hear all the time on TV, radio and see in many newspapers.

They don't necessarily have to be profane. If they are crude or vulgar, you won't be seeing them in The Daily Star.

It's not just the realization that many young people read what we write. It's a matter of respect for all of our readers.

So _ more than a few of you have asked _ if the editor is so circumspect, what was the rationale for our coverage April 13 of the arrest of Michael Frascatore on child pornography and other charges?

The reason is simple. It was the right thing to do.

It was the right thing to do for the safety of children from online predators and for educating parents about just what dangers lurk for their children, who are almost-always more Internet-savvy than Mom and Dad.

We have received comments pro and con _ overwhelmingly con _ about Friday's paper.

Frascatore, 42, of Unadilla, is a former Army recruiter who was based in Oneonta for several years. He was arrested April 5 at Fort McCoy in Wisconsin and charged with attempting to coerce a minor into sex and for distribution of child pornography.

I won't rehash the whole sordid episode here, but the gist of it from the FBI is that Frascatore had Internet chats of a highly sexual nature with a person he thought was a 13-year-old girl named "Amber."

"Amber" was actually a male Washington State University police officer posing as a young girl. The FBI says "she" received graphic webcam images of Frascatore he sent over the Internet and also five photos of a naked, underage girl.

The FBI released to us a word-for-word transcript of online conversations between Frascatore and "Amber."

After a good deal of thoughtful conversation in our newsroom about what would be the right thing to do, we decided to take all of the obscenities out of the transcript and put atop our story and the transcript a warning that the material might be unsuitable for younger readers.

The story went on Page 1, the transcript on Page 8.

The decision to print both was mine, and despite strong criticism from some people for whom I have enormous respect and admiration, and from several well-intentioned folks I haven't had the pleasure to meet, the decision was the right one.

You've been reading some of the pro and con letters on our Opinion pages, and you'll be reading more in the coming days.

Some readers said we shouldn't have printed a word about the incident until after Frascatore had been convicted in a court of law.

A couple of others didn't see why we mentioned that Frascatore's father is the mayor of Unadilla.

A few took note that Michael Frascatore's wife is an occasional contributor to The Daily Star's Weekend Lifestyle section and how could we do such a thing to her and her children.

But most of the outrage has stemmed from the decision to print the transcript, even after we warned readers and took out the obscenities.

Several people opined that we "only did it to sell newspapers."

Well, first of all, there's nothing inherently wrong with selling newspapers. That's what we do. But there is something terribly wrong in warping the news or sacrificing the finest journalistic principles to sell newspapers.

I firmly believe we did neither.

The transcript ran on Page 8. You don't sell newspapers because of things that appear on Page 8.

The text of what the FBI released is clearly disturbing. It makes us uncomfortable to read the words of a predator when we know that maybe his next _ or previous _ victim really is a young girl rather than a cop.

Frascatore's e-mail address was an obscene mutation of his last name. He has had it since 2004. Maybe this episode was his first foray into that kind of activity.

But maybe it wasn't.

One letter-writer praised what we did: "Truth is, every parent does not know the evils (of the Internet). If they read The Star, they do now."

Anyone who knows me or knows this newspaper has to realize that there was no joy in producing Friday's coverage.

Some letter-writers have accused us of being cruel to Frascatore's wife and children.

I went home in a funk Thursday night after editing the story and transcript because I realized what a sad family tragedy it was our job to report.

But frankly, given the upheaval caused by a husband and father, I don't think a newspaper story or transcript is at the top of the family's list of problems.

Why did we run the edited transcript?

Printing it added vital substance and perspective and showed just what kids and parents are up against in this new, often-disgustingly dangerous computer-driven world.

It was the right thing to do.

That's why.

___

Sam Pollak is editor of The Daily Star. He can be reached at spollak@thedailystar.com or at (607) 432-1000, ext. 208.