Jacobs also wrote that some people will will disagree with him, and that he himself will be second-guessing these kind of editorial decisions for the rest of his life. News judgment is never a hard and fast science, especially, when your in the eye of the editorial storm (weighing responsibility vs. public's right and need to know) And, plus, it makes for great blog fodder by we on the outside looking in.
Funny, though, DAZ gets a pass even though it is the one that opened the whole can of worms to the greater public. I guess Jacobs is right in one regard: the printed version of the story lent credibility that the broadcast media just couldn't seem to muster. I think he was trying to say that once the story was out, it was the Herald's duty and responsibility, in an attempt to separate fact from rumor, to provide background, depth and context that the broadcast versions couldn't in 30-second sound bytes. This is the part that is up for debate.
I don't know where the truth is. It is usually somewhere in the middle, but, I do like the fact that the local paper struggles with these decisions on these so-called "delicate" stories instead of just going off willy-nilly and half-cocked.