On this hand, a respected journalist; on that, a world-renowned music star.

To me, the choice of which one people would most want to read about was a virtual no-brainer. But maybe it's not so clear-cut.

First, some background: It may surprise regular readers of this column to hear that early on, I pushed for a comprehensive and prominent agenda of stories for the R. Kelly sex trial, both in print and on the Web.

I'm not generally thought of as one to press the salacious entertainment story over more serious news. But I didn't think of the R. Kelly saga as inconsequential. It encompassed the themes, at least, of exploitation and abuse of a child and the role that privilege and wealth play in the justice system.

Moreover, it involved a Chicago-area native who is one of the world's best-selling, best-known music artists. Yes, it was more Jerry Lee Lewis secretly marrying his 13-year-old cousin than O.J. Simpson being tried for murder, but the trial struck me as a story that would resonate with young readers in the suburbs, an audience we need to cultivate.

Ultimately, though, other more-directly suburban issues demanded our resources and it made sense for us to rely more on the wire services than our own staff for reporting on R. Kelly. Still, we sought to satisfy the basic interests in the case, and particularly when the verdict, at long last in a case more than six years old, was read, we gave it prominent play at the top of Saturday's Page 1.

Again, the decision our editors came to seemed an easy one to me. The only question lurking for me personally was whether we gave the verdict and its aftermath enough attention. Then came a comment from a member of the Daily Herald's reader advisory panel who was deeply offended that we had played the sensational sex verdict above the sudden death of television journalist Tim Russert.

"This was a major error and serves only to elevate one questionable aspect of (the day's) news while denigrating the importance and impact of one of the leaders in your very own chosen profession," wrote David Borton in an e-mail.

Panelist Gilda Karu agreed, "While R. Kelly's acquittal was newsworthy …, the placement of stories validates the old adage that 'sex sells.'"

What struck me about these readers' responses wasn't simply their disagreement with our presentation, but the intensity of their interest in Russert's profession.

Of course, it bears noting that Russert also was a celebrity, and therefore, he naturally appealed to an audience with an interest in current affairs, just as stories about Kelly appealed to R&B fans and, as I wrote last week, stories about political powerbroker Antoin "Tony" Rezko, appealed to political news aficionados.

But Russert was, let's remember, a journalist first and foremost. Naturally, I'm partial to the profession, and I think it ought to command high respect. But I have to say, it comes as a bit of a shock when it actually does.

I still think the Daily Herald is right to reach out to younger readers and to show interest in the issues and people that interest them. But I'm not going to kid you. When that effort attracts the observation that a journalist deserves equal or better treatment with a pop music star, I'm more than willing to consider being wrong.

• Jim Slusher is an assistant managing editor at the Daily Herald. He welcomes reader comments by email at jslusher@dailyherald.com.