Rocky Mountain News contributor Jason Salzman has posted on his own blog a media criticism column we rejected, saying "I didn't think the column I submitted Thursday was so bad that it would be rejected."

His claim is surprising. As Jason knows, we regularly discuss his topics early in the week and have told him on many occasions that they're not developed enough or that he's missing an angle or that they don't fit the job description of what he's supposed to do. And we have vetoed proposed items several times. That's part of editing a newspaper. I have killed one of my own columns after concerns were raised by another editor. I took them into account and decided he was right. I have killed the columns of other Rocky writers for a variety of reasons. And we, of course, hold columns if we think they need more work before publication.

AP chairman Dean Singleton has made some public statements regarding newspapers and the AP that deserve a response.

My colleague, Brian Clark, sent me info on a new vehicle for delivering the news. The subject line in his e-mail was "All the news that's fit to eat." The newspaper of the future ... saves a ton of money on newsprint and goes great with strawberry jam, he wrote. Check it out here.

The Department of Labor still doesn't talk to the Rocky. But it did send a letter to the editor, which we published unedited in today's paper and on our Web site. However, the letter was so out of line that I took the extraordinary step of publishing my own response next to it in the paper. The bottom line: We stand by the accuracy of our series.

My column this week recounts the problems caused by a poorly reported eight-word sentence in a short Web story on Sen. Barack Obama. You can follow the twists and turns of the story here.

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."