Two readers have complained recently that The Bee's coverage of the killing of Alex Mercado has been too graphic. A 14-year-old neighbor has been accused of molesting and murdering the Mendota boy.

Both argued that the details of the crime should have been withheld from readers because they were painful -- especially for relatives of the victim.

One reader wrote:

I had to stop reading after a few lines of those words on paper, that described an event that only a child molester would enjoy reading. I cannot believe those details were printed and reported in the news. Are there any guidelines that are used to help your reporters as to the difference between the gruesome details of a murder, rape, molestation versus simple newsworthy fact reporting? I felt as though I were reading an ugly novel about a rape that I surely would never choose to buy, instead of a news article reporting a murder. Both of these families have endured more than their lifetime of pain, without the Fresno Bee revealing details that should only be heard in a courtroom. I cannot help but believe!

Indeed, this is a question that newspaper editors wrestle with every day -- how to balance the costs and benefits of reporting unpleasant details about crime.

The cost side of the equation is obvious. Any normal human being would recoil at the details of this case. We naturally want to live in a world where children are allowed to keep their innocence.

The benefit of providing such details is far more abstract -- but, we feel, more powerful in this instance. The underlying principle is that citizens cannot govern themselves if they are not informed. And that means, from time to time, knowing the grisly realities that police officers and crime victims face every day.

Another way to look at it is this: Do we want to live in a world where paternalistic media organizations shield us from unpleasant facts?

We do our best in cases like this not to dwell on details unnecessarily, or repetitiously. And we typically recount the facts well into a story, so that only readers who want to know what happened will see them. But our readers are paying us for information, and it is not our job to withhold it.

A third reader objected to The Bee's decision to run a photo of Raul Castro, the teenager who is accused in the case.

I just wanted to say that I am deeply ashamed at the Fresno [Bee] for choosing to print the picture of a 14-year-old boy. Regardless of the fact that he is being charged as an adult, he is still a 14-year-old boy, and printing his picture does not serve any functional purpose. Shame on those at the Bee who thought that was appropriate!

This question is a little more straightforward. Media organizations typically shield the identity of minors accused of crimes. But any who are tried in adult courts according to adult laws have been deemed adults by our society. It is not for us to decide that they deserve to be protected from public scrutiny.