It's out there.

It's a phrase that's become shorthand for one of the most interesting and important ethical dilemmas facing journalists in the Internet era.

Someone with access to the World Wide Web has posted something about somebody that may or may or may not be true -- but is almost certainly interesting, significant or otherwise worthy of discussion.

But how and where should that discussion take place?

News organizations in Idaho and Washington faced those questions last month when an activist blogger posted an item claiming that Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, had had sex with four men.

In the accompanying story, Poynter's Pat Walters explores the difficult decision-making that the blog post touched off in several newsrooms. How to resolve the tension between providing information that at least some readers regard as important without doing undue harm to various stakeholders -- especially Sen. Craig?

The dilemma gets more complicated when the information has not been verified. Craig dismisses the claims as "ridiculous," and the blogger, Mike Rogers, refuses to name his sources.

The Craig case prompted some tough calls at Poynter, too.

The Spokesman Review, which is published near the eastern border of Washington and also circulates in Idaho, reported Rogers' claims on two of its blogs Oct. 17 and in an article in its print edition the next day. Poynter's Jim Romenesko posted an item to his section of Poynter Online headlined: "Spokane paper says it can’t ignore rumors about senator."

As the author of a site devoted to tracking news about news, Romenesko found himself in a similar situation: How could he ignore what The Spokesman Review was doing and saying about such a critical and interesting journalistic dilemma?

Romenesko, who is based outside Chicago but works full-time for Poynter, posts live to the site. I read his items as he posts throughout the day, along with other Poynter colleagues, and call or e-mail Romenesko if we spot anything that raises a question or concern. In this case, Romenesko posted the item summarizing what The Spokesman Review was reporting just after 2:30 p.m. Oct. 18. The item prompted a call from me, not because I disagreed with the decision to post but because I wanted to know more.

It wasn't until later that afternoon that I began having second thoughts about going with the item. I spoke with Poynter's Bob Steele, who had heard from a couple of other editors -- Vicki Gowler at the Idaho Statesman in Boise and Dean Miller at the Post Register in Idaho Falls -- who were making quite different decisions than The Spokesman Review had reached.

As Walters reports in the accompanying story, these and other editors told their staffs to keep digging but to hold off publishing until they knew more. In the end, Romenesko and I decided Poynter should do the same. Romenesko removed the item at about 5:30 p.m.

We're publishing details of the case now, including the claims about Craig, after extensive reporting by Walters and discussions by staff and faculty at Poynter. We also used the ASNE/Poynter Ethics Tool to help zero in on the key issues and alternatives. The main question before us: How do we help our constituency of journalists, who are facing more and more problems just like this, without doing undue harm to Craig and others in similar circumstances?

Our answer: Reporting the story enables us to put the situation in the kind of context and perspective that we believe will help journalists wrestle with similar dilemmas. We recognize that reporting the claims does harm to Craig, but we have sought to minimize that by reporting his denials and by inviting him to comment further. Through his press secretary, he declined.

We recognize we're a long way from a perfect resolution to the It's out there dilemma. We're continuing to work on it, and we invite your scrutiny and your ideas along the way.