Forty-five days after the Rocky's Laura Frank sent the Department of Labor the findings of our 'Deadly Denial' series for comment, she finally received a response - an e-mail apparently sent at 9:41 p.m. Friday night that can only be described as a personal attack.
The Post's Politics West site on Thursday afternoon carried this headline: "I-25: An open or shut case? This followed a headline in the morning Rocky that day, "Obama speech will close I-25."
An upset reader wrote an impassioned critique of our coverage of the verdict in the trial of a teacher convicted of having sex with a 16-year-old student, arguing that we shouldn't have included details of the crime. The end result of our e-mail exchange was what I thought was a good dialogue that made me reflect on how one of our core values, "compassion," should be applied in such cases.
We published a letter in our Talk Back to the Media letters package Saturday that rebuked the Rocky for its coverage of Pridefest. The writer claimed he had to "dig" to find anything about the event. We give broad lattitude to letter writers to make their point, even when we know that an assertion may be a stretch. After all, it is what the writer feels. But in this case, before making their own judgment, readers should at least know the facts.
Blogger Jill Zimon makes a good point in response to my column about "individuated newspapers." "It's my sense that one reason people don't subscribe to newspapers is in fact because of the use of paper, in the same way some vegetarians don't eat meat: it's a lifestyle choice."
In my most recent column, I asked readers for their thoughts about whether editorial endorsements go too far in confusing readers about newspapers' political independence. Here are some of the e-mails I received.
Colorado Media Matters has taken to mind reading.
Here are some examples of reader e-mails and my response.
As many of you know, we have struggled to deliver the Rocky on time during the World Series.
