THERE won't be an editor in the country who hasn't faced the same cutting accusation: "You're only doing it to sell more papers."

It comes up time and time again when people have a gripe against a story that's been published, and it really is a curious point of attack.

After all, selling papers is, ultimately, what editors are paid for.

It's a bit like saying to a motor dealer: "You're only putting those nice shiny cars in your showroom so you'll attract more customers."

The latest example came last week when I took a call from someone who lives in my home village, objecting to a story we'd published about the local school.

It involved the now well-documented case of model pupil Kayleigh Baker who'd been banned by her school from going to the end-of-year prom because her parents had decided not to give permission for her to attend extra revision classes.

From a very basic newspaper point of view, this story had everything: a popular, pretty girl, with an impeccable record, being told by her school that she couldn't go to the ball because she and her parents were in conflict with the school's policy. A modern-day Cinderella.

And this was a school with one of the country's best track records for examination results - a widely-acknowledged beacon of excellence.

I had no doubt the story would go national because it also embodied a debate at the heart of the education system. How hard should pupils be pushed in pursuit of examination success? And where does parental choice fit in?

But if I'd just been interested in selling newspapers, I'd have published the story months ago when I first became aware of the dispute.

This is another occasion when an editor's private life clashes with his professional duties because I live in the village, near Darlington, and two of my children go to the school in question.

The truth is that I would much rather the story hadn't been published because it would have meant Kayleigh's parents and the school had reached an agreement.

My advice to Kayleigh's parents was to think long and hard about whether they wanted their daughter to be at the centre of a story which was bound to attract national attention.

After a great deal of thought, the family decided they wanted to go public, a governor circulated his resignation letter in protest at Kayleigh's treatment, and publication became inevitable.

Some people have asked why it was given front page prominence. The simple answer is that it is a very good news story, humanising an important issue in the public interest. Why else would The Times, The Telegraph, the Daily Express, the Daily Mirror, national television news and national radio have followed it up?

Others have asked why it was afforded so much space in The Northern Echo. The reason is that I was determined to ensure both sides of the story - the school's perspective and the parents' view - were given equal balance.

Did it sell extra papers? Yes. Do I wish its publication could have been avoided? Yes.

ON to balls of a completely different kind. Local Heroes has now been launched as an online interactive service, giving grass roots sports enthusiasts the chance to upload their news, reports and results directly at www.thenorthernecho.co.uk.

As a word of warning, here's a celebrated contribution from a football contributor: "The under-11s worked their way back into the game and eventually scored following a goalmouth scrabble."

If only the correspondent had gone to those extra revision classes.