DECISIONS can evolve. They can begin in one place, go on a journey, and end somewhere else – and never has that struck me more than last Tuesday.

The first thing I do when I wake up these days is to check my iPad to see what’s happening, and my eye on Tuesday morning was caught by a tweet posted by former Daily Mirror editor Piers Morgan. With the message “I suggest the entire world retweets this”, he had tweeted a picture of the cover of the latest Charlie Hebdo magazine.

Tens of thousands of people had by then already retweeted it, with respected BBC broadcaster Jeremy Vine highlighted as a prominent retweeter.

It is the nature of the social media beast that it invites decisions in an instant. Twitter is the media of the moment. I retweeted Morgan’s rallying call in a show of solidarity, defending the freedom of expression.

At that point, I had little doubt that I would be reprinting the Charlie Hebdo front cover, showing a cartoon of the Prophet, Mohammed, weeping over the deaths of 17 people in the shootings in and around Paris.

But, when time allows, important decisions shouldn’t be made without careful consideration. They should be given time to breathe.

My staff were consulted about whether the following morning’s edition of The Northern Echo should include a photograph of the Charlie Hebdo front cover. After all, it is not inconceivable that they might be placed at risk by the cartoon being published.

I listened to radio phone-ins on the issue, spoke to other editors, consulted several people I trust – journalists and non-journalists – and weighed up the arguments for and against publication.

I spoke to one national newspaper editor who even told me that one practical reason for not publishing the cartoon was that so many newsagents are Muslims – and newspaper sales would be adversely affected.

By 9pm, more than 12 hours after retweeting Piers Morgan, I was still torn by what I’d come to view as the hardest decision in my 17 years as an editor.

There were strong arguments on both sides. One hand, I believed in the right of Charlie Hebdo to be free to make an editorial judgement to publish the cartoon and not be frightened into submission by murderous fanatics with machine guns. And I appreciated the strength of the justification that the cover of the magazine was central to a major international news story, and that readers should not be denied the opportunity to see what all the controversy was about.

But that had to be weighed against the knowledge that reprinting the cartoon would deeply offend some people, and I would be lying if I didn’t admit that the potential risk to staff was also a factor.

It was a close call. One former editor of The Northern Echo described it as “51-49”.

But what made up my mind was a piece which had been written for us by Tahir Selby, a moderate imam at a mosque in Hartlepool. In his piece, he condemned terrorism.

He spoke up for the “wonderful” rights of free speech which we enjoy. But he also respectfully underlined the fact that Muslims are offended by cartoons poking fun at the prophet.

“What good does it do to stir this up even more?” he asked, urging The Northern Echo not to reprint the Charlie Hebdo front cover and to show “wisdom and judgement”.

The image was not published in The Northern Echo nor in most of the British national newspapers, although – having clearly agonised over its policy for most of the day – the BBC did show it.

My own decision received a mixed response. At one end of the spectrum, I was called both spineless. At the other, courageous.

I genuinely don’t see it in terms of cowardice or bravery. I fully respect the opinion of those who think the decision was wrong or even spineless, but I sincerely hope it was reached through an honest attempt to listen to the point of view of others.

What hope is there if we don’t at least try to do that?