At  first, the photograph made several Post-Dispatch staffers laugh. Then, for some, a realization that maybe the scene wasn't so amusing.

The photo showed a 15-month-old playing with a real lawn mower. The lawn mower wasn't on. And his dad, though not in the frame of the picture, was nearby trimming grass.

The initial reaction of someone seeing the photo might well be that the boy was mowing the lawn. The caption accompanying the picture clearly stated that wasn't the case, and the caption noted the father's proximity -- as well as the boy's love for his two plastic lawn mowers.

Editors at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch were split on whether we should publish the photo.

Some said the boy clearly wasn't in danger. Others noted that accidents can happen -- that a mower can roll where it's not meant to roll, and that mowers have sharp blades and edges.

One editor likened it to a child playing with unlit fireworks.

Editors try to anticipate readers' views and reactions while deciding what gets in the paper and what gets left out, That's especially true when making decisions on controversial matters -- big and small.

In this case, we thought many readers would be upset at seeing a toddler apparently mowing the lawn. The photo caption might mollify or even reverse those feelings for many. But others probably would say the photo suggests a dangerous situation -- and that the newspaper would be irresponsible to use it.

Often editors decide to publish photos despite the likelihood that some readers will be upset. Many times through the years, we've debated whether to use gruesome scenes of carnage after natural disasters or massacres. We've weighed whether to show the bodies -- sometimes mutilated -- of U.S. soldiers killed in atrocities. The news value of those scenes dictated that the photos, however upsetting, be published.

In this case -- a matter of far less consequence -- the photo carried no news value. It was strictly a feature photo that would be fun to some, not to others. After a short debate, editors -- in a split decision -- decided the better course was not to publish the photo.

We've included the photo and the original photo caption with this Editors' Desk item. It's not that we think it's okay to show things online that we wouldn't put in the Post-Dispatch. Rather we think it's essential that you be able to view the photo in considering whether we made the right decision to not publish it. One of the functions of the Editors' Desk is to share some insight into our decision-making. We'd appreciate your thoughts on this one.