The recent decision by top editors at the New York Times and Washington Post to publish the 36,000-word manifesto of the so-called Unabomber is one of the more divisive journalistic issues in modern history.

Journalists in favor of printing the piece have argued that though they don’t relish letting terrorists dictate the editorial content of a newspaper, the good that could come of it outweighs having to swallow a little pride.

Letting the Unabomber have his day in the public arena, proponents argue, may ultimately lead to his arrest and possibly save hundreds of lives.

Still, opponents of the Times/Post decision say the powers that be are setting a dangerous precedent, unparalleled in American journalism history. Giving into terrorist demands, under any circumstances, they say is never the answer.

Opponents argue that by rewarding the Unabomber for killing innocent Americans in an effort to further his views against industrialism can only lead to similar requests.

While the Iowa State Daily doesn’t pretend to exert the same influence as either the Times or Post, the issue is still relevant on a smaller scale.

Should the Unabomber ask the Daily to run his eight-page editorial, he will be turned down.

Newspapers should not be in the business of allowing their editorial content to be dictated by terrorists. In doing so, the Times and Post forfeited their roles as gatekeepers of information.

Granted, most editorial decisions don’t have the real potential of costing lives, but the Unabomber has given no indication that his attacks will now stop since his views have been aired.

Editors at the Times and Post should have based their decision on whether the manifesto itself is newsworthy. To that end, it should not have been printed. It’s a sad day for journalists when a terrorist is able to make news judgments.