Q. Why don't you publish the voting records of those we are being asked to vote for, from state to national? You publish things of limited interest - why not something of interest to most citizens?

Shirley Jensen

A. We do publish voting records on major issues. But we seldom go beyond major legislation, for various reasons.

From a practical standpoint, it would be impossible to publish every vote taken, largely because lawmakers cast thousands of votes each year. And, most of those are for non-controversial "housekeeping" issues such as reauthorizing existing programs, routine budget adjustments, and minor technical corrections in state laws covering everything from use of barley straw in pond water to establishing commute-trip reduction goals for state agencies.

Additionally, most of the committee and subcommittee votes are taken audibly (yeas vs. nays), so no roll call breakouts even exist -- just notations on whether bills (or proposed amendments) were passed out of committee or killed.

When we do include a how-they-voted box, it generally is published alongside the story. We will continue to do that as major issues arise.

My understanding is that the SR used to subscribe to a service that compiled controversial and semi-conroversial congressional legislation each week, along with a breakout on how the Northwest delegation voted. But we no longer subscribe to that service, and with our newspaper getting smaller I'm unconvinced it's the best use of ever-more limited space.

But several resources are available to voters who want more information about any legislation, including any roll call votes that may have been taken.

In Washington, the Legislature's website is http://www.leg.wa.gov/legislature, the legislative hotline is 800-562-6000.

In Idaho, the Legislature's website is http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/, the legislative hotline is 800-626-0471.

Nationally, legislation and voting records for the U.S. House and U.S. Senate can be found on the Library of Congress' web site at http://thomas.loc.gov/.

Q. Why did you choose the two most inflammatory and liberal papers in the country (the Washington Post and the LA Times) to report on Governor Palin's nomination? Could you be showing your own bias?

Becky Buri
Colfax, WA

To begin with, I can’t agree with your characterization of the Post and Times as “inflammatory.” Both newspapers are well respected and credible sources of news and information. Their editorial pages may be liberal, but we don’t publish their editorials.

In reviewing both stories again today, I’m not sure what distresses you so much about our use of them. Both stories offered context, cited Palin’s successes and contributions in Alaska and quoted McCain extensively about his selection.

The Post story focused on the surprise nature of McCain’s choice and cited numerous political arguments for and against her selection. That seems like the balance that most readers want and need.

Q: What happened to the Krauthammer editorials?

I realize it was a trial, but it seems that conservative opinion is woefully lacking in your OP-ED page. Off the top of my head I can count Barone and Sowell as consistent contributors to this page. While Pitts, Broder, Estrich, Sheerer, Haarop, and more as well as your several staff opinion writers grace your pages daily with a liberal bent. The same applies to the political cartoonists. Only Ramirez truly represents a consistently conservative viewpoint. I won't even begin to mention writers in the Values section, 7, and the outdoors editor.

Eastern Washington is probably the most conservative area in this state yet liberal and ultra liberal views get ample airing daily in the SR. Were I new to this part of the state I might think that liberals make up the majority of this region. I believe in freedom of the press. All I am asking for is a fair and equal airing of the other side of the coin. What the SR does is suppress, ignore and manipulate the news and opinion. How? Let's start with the fact that a vast majority of journalists are liberal/ultra liberal. From that fact it is easy to see how journalist project their worldview into their content. When criticized, they poll their peers, only to

find that they are, ta-dah, correct in their view. Since all their
peers think like them, they get a distorted sense of the real world around them as their views are constantly reinforced by their environment.

As for letters to the editor, I note the same readers/contributors with their strident and shrill liberal causes. Personally, the moment I see the "Bush Lied...," or the "Cheney, Halliburton", "Twin Towers conspiracy" themes served up for the umpteenth time, I move on to the next piece. This usually makes for a quick "read" of the paper and a vow to cancel my subscription the next time it's up for renewal. And I probably will this time.

I realize the squeaky wheel gets the grease so I can only deduce that the Krauthhammer experiment was met by a loud but small number of liberal lefties who objected to this man's intellect. It would be funny if it weren't so sad that those who defend the First Amendment so stridently are so determined in their efforts to squelch an opinion different from their own. I believe you have abdicated your responsibility to provide opinion balance to a vocal minority of readers by letting "us" decide for you what you know you should have done.

-- Chris Mangini

A: Charles Krauthammer is one of several syndicated columnists, both liberal and conservative, who have been published on a trial basis in recent weeks. As has been mentioned before, the idea was to engage in several such test runs (there will be more to follow) and make some decisions toward the end of the year. At that time there probably will be some additions and some terminations. Conservative Charles Krauthammer is still in the running. For that matter, so is liberal Amy Goodman.

I note in your assessment of current columnists, you list David S. Broder and Froma Harrop as liberals. I see them as mostly centrist, drifting modestly to the left at times. You did not mention either Cal Thomas or Kathleen Parker, two decidedly conservative commentators, or Jonah Goldberg, whose conservative perspectives we sometimes run. Likewise, in your tabulation of our cartoonists, you overlooked conservatives Scott Stantis and Glenn McCoy.

As for the selection of letters, the mix of liberal and conservative viewpoints is what it is. We can't print what we don't receive.

I hope these comments have been responsive to your questions. If you get a chance, though, perhaps you would respond to a question from me: What is the source of your assertion "that a vast majority of journalists are liberal/ultra liberal."?

Q. Whatever were you thinking with your front page design this morning (Thursday)?

The Duncan story certainly deserved front page coverage but to give it the entire front page when this country experienced an historic event in race relations yesterday by nominating the first minority candidate to run for President? Surely, national history should have merited more attention on the front page. At least it seems to have been more important than the weather --which it seems to have replaced on the bottom strip. To devote 6 column inches --including
headline-- to a story of such national significance on the front page is a travesty in journalistic decision-making and an insult to countless residents of the inland Pacific Northwest, no matter what race they happen to be.

I am thoroughly disgusted.

Lillian Ashworth
Pullman

For starters, I want to emphasize that we are a local newspaper first and foremost. Our number one priority is local news. The vast majority of our staff is devoted to covering news that occurs here in Eastern Washington and North Idaho.

The Groene murder case, considered to be the most horrific crime committed in this region in decades, has been a story of importance and interest from Day One.

I certainly recognize that the nomination of Barack Obama is a historic moment. And that’s why it was on the front page, although clearly secondary to the Duncan verdict.

We’ve had the Democratic convention on the front page every day this week. We’ll do the same when the Republicans convene next week. While the Obama nomination was historic, it was hardly a surprise given this stage of the campaign. He’s been the presumed nominee for months.

I suggested to our editors on Thursday that I expected his acceptance speech to be much more compelling, revealing and important than the pro forma nomination news of the prior day. Not all of my colleagues agreed. But we did give Obama’s speech dramatic play on the cover in Friday’s paper, reflecting the substance and import of his remarks.

Next week, we get to do this all again.

Q: First a headline of "Biden has substance and style"... Do you plan to run an ad on the front page--Vote for Obama?

--Cal Modisett

A: Since we had the choice of Biden in Saturday's paper, the intent was to find a story that dealt more with exactly what qualities led Obama to bring him aboard. The story is all about that – that Biden is one of the most senior and highly regarded members of the Senate with an expertise in foreign affairs and national security matters. That assertion was unchallenged anywhere in the story (and in stories that I’ve read since). In the fact box that ran with the jump, McCain calls Biden a "wise selection."

The use of "style" in the headline is taken from the third graph of the story: "What separates Biden from the Senate pack, though, is not his resume, it’s his style.” The reporters go on to explain at some length Biden's memorable gaffes and the discerning reader can infer that "style" is not necessarily an attribute in a candidate for national office. If the headline had focused on the negative fallout from Biden's gaffes, no doubt there would have been callers upset over our Republican bias.

Ironically, some of the most virulent and persistent criticism of Obama has been that he is all style and little substance. Early in the current campaign, in fact, presidential candidate Biden deemed his young rival from Illinois "not yet ready" to be president.

So the "nut graph"/point of the story is that Obama chose someone with demonstrably more substance in certain areas (foreign policy, national security) and with a different style. Thus, I would posit that the headline accurately reflected the content and tone of the story over which it appeared.

In retrospect, the story probably should have carried an "analysis" tag.

Nonetheless, the selection of Biden was the only news of note on a pre-convention weekend coverage that even Dick Cheney would cede to the Democrats. McCain and th4 Republicans get their turn next week in Minnesota.

--Bertil Peterson, news editor

My apologies if this is the wrong direction for my question; I couldn't find a way to email the reporter direct, and actually my purpose isn't to criticize her.

My serious question: do newspapers no longer have copy editors? As the media for conveyance changes more to electronic, will proofing be left entirely to spell checkers?

Is there a way to guard against sad blunders like this one in Ms. Cunniff's story:
“'He and I sat out there and balled for a half an hour,” she said. “I told him he’d win, but he said, ‘No, there’s no winning.’”

Florine Dooley

You are one of several readers who've called or emailed about our unfortunate mistake this morning in the story about the death of former Hayden Lake police chief Jason Felton. We're very embarrassed by this mistake. There's simply no excuse for it. It's offensive to the family and to readers. And it makes us look stupid.

We do have copy editors on duty every night. Those editors read every story we publish. They improve many stories with their careful editing and they prevent many mistakes from getting in the paper. Obviously, we missed this one. The word we should have used was "bawled."

Q. Will the Spokesman be doing an article on the oil companies exportation of oil to other countries? I just read a Forbes.com article titled "Analysis-US oil firms seek drilling access, but exports soar". The U.S. oil industry is shipping record amounts to other countries while asking for permission to drill more, so that they can export more.

K. Howard

A. The issue of U.S. oil exports is not one that we’re likely to tackle with our reporting resources. It’s certainly an interesting and important angle, but we have to count on the news services we subscribe to for this kind of national and international coverage.

I’ve included a link to the Reuters story that you saw on Forbes.com so that other readers of this column can see it for themselves. We don’t subscribe to the Reuters news service, but we’ll look for similar stories that might be provided by Associated Press or the Los Angeles Times/Washington News Service.

As I reviewed our electronic archives today, I noticed that we’ve certainly published stories in the past that have mentioned the U.S. oil exports, but we’ve not done anything prominent with the issue lately.

Q. According to the story "Officials reveal cause of Valley fire", there is a person that "supervised" the "allegedly illegal recreational fire" that caused so much damage this last week. And while the authorities are yet to make their decision about whether to prosecute this person, you remind readers that the fire burned eleven homes, ten outbuildings, more than 1,000 acres, caused millions of dollars in damage, up to $1.7 million in firefighting costs and triggered the evacuations of hundreds of residents. And if that wasn't enough, her home got away unscathed and is worth $100 thousand shy of half a million. That's all enough to get someone pretty mad isn't it? Good thing you didn't share this person's street address -- oh wait....you did. What possible positive value does providing this woman's street address add to the story?!

J. Ramon Alvarez
Spokane, WA

A. Last week’s fires were devastating for several property owners and residents. The public interest and the public’s right to know what happened and what caused the fire is unquestionable.

The enormity of this news event requires us to publish as much relevant information is available. Because fire officials publicly identified Tracy Berg as the owner of land where this fire may have started, it seems obvious to us that the public has a right to that information and any context that our reporters can provide about the precise location, the person or people involved.

Our role in covering a disaster of this magnitude is not to accuse someone of criminal or careless behavior or to proclaim someone’s guilt or innocence. But we do feel an obligation to readers to inform readers of what the investigators have discovered.

If we had avoided naming Berg, who was identified in a statement issued by Bill Clifford, deputy fire marshal for the Spokane Valley Fire Department, we would have been accused of covering up information. Berg’s home address is critical to the story because the location of her home is a basic, central fact.

Q. Just wanted to pass on to you that after a five- hour marathon on CSPAN discussing the impeachment of GW Bush, I was appalled not to see one mention of this in the press. I personally, as did my neighbors, thought that the points brought up on this program were pertinent and timely for our country. I personally was most disturbed by the civil rights issues.

It seems to me that if I gave birth to a rabbit tomorrow I would probably get international press. Why can't we discuss what's happening in this country? Please answer.

Pat

A. We have received a couple of inquiries from readers wanting to know why we haven’t done more with the impeachment issue.

We published a lengthy Associated Press story in Thursday’s newspaper, reporting that the House has voted to send articles of impeachment against President Bush to a committee that is not likely to hold hearings before the end of the term.

While the House floor debate may have been interesting, it’s pretty clear that the impeachment measure has little chance of moving foward. Nancy Pelosi, a leading Democrat and the Speaker of the House, has declared the prospects for impeachment hearings “off the table.”

As our editors decide each day on which stories they publish, they weigh their importance, the seriousness of the issues and the likelihood that the story will gather momentum or sustain a reasonable level of consideration. Reading the signals of various Congressional leaders, it would appear the impeachment story is going to die a quiet death.

As I noted, we didn’t ignore the House debate. But until there’s significant movement in the House, we’re not likely to publish much more about prospects for impeachment.

Q: I am a parent of a band student writing because I am upset that the newspaper did not print the results of the Junior Lilac Parade but referred readers to see a website. As a parent, I am aware of the tremendous time and energy put into preparing for a parade of this nature. The kids and families look so forward to opening the newspaper the next morning to see where they placed in the parade and they need to be able to see the results, cut them out, show them off or send them to family. We pay for the local paper to be able to read about local events, not to be referred to the internet. The paper has always printed the parade results in the past, why not this year? I hope and expect to be able to read the results of the Junior Lilac Parade in the Spokesman Review next May. Thank you. (Please print this letter in your paper).
Concerned Father
Spokane Valley

A: We’ll be publishing the results of the parade in this week’s community weeklies, which are distributed to thousands of our regular subscribers. Look for the results in the North Voice, South Voice, Valley Voice and West Plains Voice, which are part of the Thursday newspaper.
We devoted considerable space in Sunday’s newspaper to two photographs from Saturday’s parade. There will be a photo published with the results on Thursday as well.

I’ve passed on your letter for consideration by the editorial page staff, which determines which letters are published in the paper.

Question: Wonder why the Spokesman-Review didn't consider running the Pro&Con editorials about the STA and CrimeCheck ballot issues side by side in today and yesterday editions. I know as a long time reader that the Spokesman-Review has done this similarly with syndicated columnists. The readership I believe would have been better served in this type of format.

--Mark

Answer: Thanks for your feedback. The decision was influenced largely by layout considerations. Putting the columns side by side would have crowded out too many letters to the editor, in our judgment. To make sure readers understood the pro & con balance intended by our presentation, we made it a point to include information boxes explaining the publication schedule. Unfortunately, that box was removed by mistake with the first column on the STA proposal. Next time we go through this, however, we'll reconsider your suggestion. Thanks for sharing it.

--Doug Floyd, editorial page editor

Question: By the way, how may editions of the S-R are there? Do they differ by time of day or by area of distribution or both? In general, how does content differ from one edition to the next?

If someone needed to find out definitively if something ran or not in the S-R on a given day, is there a version of record (electronic or otherwise) which contains everything?

And finally, does the most complete version of a story get electronically archived? I.e., if some time after the fact I want to find an article and am offered the opportunity to buy it (that system still exists, correct), will I be assured of getting an unedited version of the longest version of what the paper originally printed?

Hope those are reasonable questions and not too much for one post.

--David Brookbank, taken from a comment posted on Apr 25.

Answer: Hello David, Sorry for the delay. Yes, there is a way for someone to tell you for sure what exactly was published on what day. Our system keeps electronic versions of all stories/photos/pages ever published in S-R since 1995.

While that database is not available to general public, a similar search engine is available on S-R.com under Archives.

The materials available for purchase are the materials that actually appeared in that day's paper. You can buy back issues by calling (509) 459-5196 or 459-5025 or full-page prints by calling (509) 459-5416. Please note that this would be the exact print-published version - not raw unedited versions such as what S-R receives from newswire services.

One exception: The Idaho edition, which isn't labeled as an "edition" anymore per se, can differ slightly. The same stories are used for Spokane area and North Idaho, but advertisements tailored for the Idaho area (and therefore advertisement sizes) are often different. Differing ad size sometimes forces editors to edit stories to shorter length to fit the page and column space. I hope this answers your question.

Added on 5/20/2008:

Hi David, Sorry, the comments feature was automatically closed after the maximum time. To address your question about which version goes into the electronic archives, and based on some recent encounters with this Idaho column space, I think the publishing system saves whichever story edition it encounters last.

The archiving is completely automated, no intern, no human, unless there's troubleshooting involved. The entire issue is ported from the publishing system (which goes onto the pages) to the online edition, which goes live after midnight and may be updated again the next morning.

In the future, the whole thing about having different versions of stories is going to get even more complicated. The 24-hour news cycle is going to result in more web versions of stories, the final of which may be put into print.

Frank, if you are searching for a blog post, may I suggest using the Search function at the very top of the SpokesmanReview.com main page.

Question: At the suggestion of Becky Nappi, below is my disappointment and concern about the Spokesman's lack of coverage of the return of our Spokane Battery P Marines on Sunday. How could this happen - where is your military network? How could these brave men not even be mentioned in our only newspaper? And further - what will you do to make sure an event like this is not overlooked in the future? It is not too late to print SOMETHING!! Please advise when that will happen.

A loyal reader,

Mary Henry Cameron

Answer: We’ve had two inquiries from readers about this. Unfortunately, we received no advance notice about the return of the unit.

“We wish we had known of the event - we almost surely would have covered it,” reports City Editor Addy Hatch. “But after seeing it on TV ourselves Sunday, we looked back through the faxes and e-mails and determined that we did not receive any notification whatsoever. I have a note on my desk to connect with someone at the reserve center to find out why we aren't on their media notification list.”

Unlike the Fairchild Air Force Base, the reserve units usually don't have a fully-functioning public relations staff, so they are not quite as dependable in getting the word out to all media outlets.

The event is now almost a week old, so we are not planning a story.

Question: What was the date on the historic page reprinted in Wednesday’s Spokesman-Review?

Answer: A reader called to suggest many people would have that question about the page devoted to the space shuttle Columbia explosion. The reprint omitted the date of publication: Feb. 2, 2003.
We’ve been publishing reprints of historic pages for almost a full year now as part of the newspaper’s celebration of its 125th year of publication. The historic pages are a project handled by the marketing and advertising departments. We don’t normally try to address advertising and marketing issues in Accuracy Watch or the news pages in general, but it seemed to editors today that we could provide readers a service by publishing the date. There will be a note in Thursday’s Accuracy Watch.

Question: I couldn't find this story (about the CIA interrogation tactics) in the S-R. Did I miss it? Or did you choose not to print it?

-- Judy Butler

Answer: We published a short version of the Washington Post story about the tactics in the April 12 edition. That was the same week that Congress was holding hearings on the war in Iraq, so we devoted much more of our news space to the hearings instead of the interrogation issue.

Here's what we published:

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post
CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush said Friday (April 11) that he was aware his top national security advisers had discussed the details of harsh interrogation tactics to be used on detainees.

Bush also said in an interview with ABC News that he approved of the meetings, which were held as the CIA began to prepare for a secret interrogation program that included waterboarding, or simulated drowning, and other coercive techniques.

"Well, we started to connect the dots, in order to protect the American people" by learning what various detainees knew, Bush said in the interview at the presidential ranch here. "And yes, I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."

The remarks underscore the extent to which the top officials were directly involved in setting the controversial interrogation policies.

Bush suggested in the interview that no one should be surprised that his senior advisers, including Vice President Dick Cheney, would discuss details of the interrogation program. "I told the country we did that," Bush said. "And I also told them it was legal. We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it."

The Washington Post first reported in January 2005 that proposed CIA interrogation techniques were discussed at several White House meetings.

The Post reported that the attendees at one or more of these sessions included then-presidential counsel Alberto Gonzales, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, then-Defense Department general counsel William Haynes II, then-National Security Council legal adviser John Bellinger III, CIA counsel John Rizzo, and David Addington, then-counsel to Cheney.

Reader Dave Kilmer called to ask if the S-R uses a soy-based ink and is therefore safe to compost.

Production manager Laurie Lunzer says that while much of the ink we use does have a soy component, only the red ink has a high enough percentage to be considered "soy based".

So you should probably recycle your old Spokesman-Review rather than compost it.

Update: Lunzer did some additional checking, and found that the EPA considers shredded newspaper a viable composting material regardless of ink content.

Question: I did not know whether to laugh or wonder if you are testing your readers' IQ. Scott Maben's last sentence [Northwest, Friday, April 4, 2008, front page] "But the boy vanished before police could ketchup with him." I thought ketchup was something that went on hamburgers. Just in case you are not smarter than a third grader, the police activity would be to "catch up" with him.

--Carol Vines, Spokane

Answer: The misspelling was entirely intentional. We have a sense of humor and I couldn't resist throwing a few puns into this brief news item. It's about a giant wiener on wheels, after all. That's funny stuff. I squeezed in references to ketchup, mustard and relish, but I held the onions. We have some taste.

-- Scott Maben, Deputy City Editor

Question: I am beginning to wonder if you still have an education reporter. Dr. Terry Bergeson, state superintendent, came to Spokane in January to obtain final public comment on the newly revised math standards. I did not see any notification in the paper. The meeting, scheduled for the end of January, was canceled because of the weather. The SR said nothing.

Then, the OSPI's 15th Annual January Conference 2008 was held here in Spokane January 29-31. Dr. Bergeson and thousands of teachers, staff members and members of the general public attended to talk about education issues, including the revised math standards. Not a word about it was said in the paper - not before, during or after.

I called Sara Leaming to ask about the lack of coverage. She wasn't in, so I left a message. She did not call me back. I called the newsroom, and I was told that Dan Hansen said the paper was too busy covering the snowstorms. Not to be flip about it, but snow melts. The decisions made on math and science standards will haunt children in Washington State for years to come.

The canceled meeting from January was rescheduled for Feb. 9. Again, the public was invited to attend and give final comment to Dr. Bergeson and Dr. Nancy Stowell about the revised math standards. Local math advocates told me about the date, time and place of the meeting. Several interesting comments were made that day. The paper said not a word.

So what's up with that? I saw your editorial today on the school librarians. I have to tell you that your pro-education comments rang pretty hollow.

--Laurie Rogers

Answer: Ms. Rogers is right about the education conference... While education reporter Sara Leaming attended a pre-conference gathering, we abandoned plans to attend the conference itself when Spokane schools shut own for the first time since 1996. We felt – and I still believe – that was a better use of Sara’s time, and of more benefit to our readers.

For our readers who aren't educators, the state Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction is charged with implementing statewide policies, certifying teachers, setting learning standards and administering the controversial WASL. But the OSPI does not set policy. For instance, the office could not do away with the WASL because that is a legislative mandate. Nor could OSPI override Spokane Public Schools decision to permanently close an elementary school last year, because that was a matter for the local school board.

It’s fairly rare that the OSPI’s annual conference would be in Spokane, and if not for the storm, Sara would have attended. But that doesn't mean she would have provided live coverage. Stories about conference discussions generally have little to offer the general public. And the presence of Dr. Bergeson, the elected head of OSPI, doesn’t change that fact. Generally speaking, journalists attend conferences primarily to connect with sources and get ideas for future, big-picture stories. (We did, however, have a brief item in the Valley Voice section of the newspaper noting that seven middle-school students from West Valley City School gave an hour-long presentation to 50 teachers at the conference.)

In fact, the major discussion topics at the OSPI conference are subjects Sara has written about extensively: The WASL and the math curriculum. A check through our archives shows that Sara wrote 10 significant WASL stories in 2007, and more are in the works for this school year. Sara has also written about the debate over the math curriculum, including the group to which Ms. Rogers belongs, "Parents for Math Matters," which opposes proposed changes in the curriculum. You can bet Sara will write more about that subject as soon as we know how revisions to the math standards affect local curricula.

One further point: There is a wall of separation between the newsroom and the editorial page. Reporters don’t weigh in on editorials like the one you mention, and neither do I. Nor is it an education reporter’s role to advocate, whether for more librarians or for a particular curriculum.

--Dan Hansen, deputy city editor

Question: To the editors: I'm sure I'm not the only one who was offended by the letter to the editor labeling an abortion-rights stance as schizophrenia. The term was used several times, apparently as a substitute for split personality. My issue isn't with the pro-life opinion, but with the incorrect use of the term schizophrenia. This is truly a heart-breaking disease which afflicts many people, and to use it so casually referring to something completely unrelated was hurtful and unnecessary. Try substituting the word retarded, which was also used quite easily in the past, and you might see my point.
--Sue Haynes

Answer: Thank you for your frank feedback. You expressed very clearly a dilemma that arises frequently on the letters page, which is intended to be a forum that reflects the kind of conversation that is taking place in the community. That conversation, unfortunately perhaps, often adopts word usage that may trigger unintended sensitivities. To many, for example, the cliche "spends like a drunken sailor" is just an overworked phrase, but some of those who have served in the Navy take offense. The letter you have pointed out offers another example. In our handling of letters to the editor, we have to make an admittedly subjective decision about when this kind of situation is so egregious as to warrant withholding a letter or deleting a phrase. No doubt many people would have different ideas about where to draw that line. Since our mission is to promote broad discussion of public issues, we are probably more reluctant to sanitize the discussion than others might be. It's not that we relish causing some readers personal discomfort, but we believe it is sometimes unavoidable within the open discussion that is necessary for democracy to succeed. Regards,

--Doug Floyd, editorial page editor

Question: I have noticed the lack of any news about military operations in Afghanistan. Can you please let me know why this is? Is there a block by the Pentagon/White House? Is it because there is a lack of reporters in Afghanistan? I have a son serving in the Green Berets there. Sure would be nice if I could pick up the paper and see something coming out of that God awful place.

--Cameron Wylie

Answer: We publish news service stories out of Afghanistan fairly frequently, but admittedly not nearly as often as we do about Iraq. There's no White House or Pentagon blackout on Afghanistan, but there are far fewer reporters based in that country these days. The Iraq situation has dominated news coverage because of the enormity of the U.s. operations there.

It's difficult to provide thorough coverage out of both Iraq and Afghanistan because of the dangerous conditions there. We rely on Associated Press and the supplemental news services that we subscribe to for our international coverage.

I'll share your note with our editors and ask them to make sure we're giving due consideration to developments in Afghanistan.

--Gary Graham, managing editor

Question: Please tell me I’m not the only one who noticed the front page of the Today section yesterday (Tuesday, Jan. 22). Does anyone ever actually look at the page before it gets printed?

The feature article (Slice not withstanding) is about getting women to accept their image. The banner ad on the bottom is about Botox, microdermabrasion, facial peels and varicose vein removal. What is the message here? -- Ann Elliott

Answer: There's no question the story and ad on Tuesday created a nice bit of irony. And it might lead readers to conclude that the newsroom and advertising department have absolutely no clue what the other is doing.

And actually, that conclusion is pretty much correct.

We do not pull or adjust news content in order to make it mesh with advertising. That's a firm, etched-in-stone policy. If we didn't have that policy, it could open the door to a situation in which we might, for example, pull a story about automotive recalls because we had an ad for a car dealership on the same page.

So this is a case where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. And we intend to keep it that way.

Question: I know the Spokesman leans a little to the Right but do you have to be so blatant?

John McCain’s win appears on the front page above the fold. Hillary Clinton's win finally gets reported on page 9. Wore me out just looking for it.

I know you don’t claim to be "Fair and Balanced" and thank God for that. But how about a little more journalistic objectivity. Wasn't Clinton’s win at least as big a surprise?

--Bob Wynhausen from Sandpoint, Idaho

Answer: It's campaign season, so this is not the first time nor will it be the last time that we'll be accused of treating the presidential candidates unfairly.

For starters, let's be clear about one thing: the editorial stances and endorsements on the editorial pages have absolutely no influence on our news stories or how they are treated. I know folks raise their eyes when they hear this argument, but it's the simple truth. As the managing editor of the Spokesman-Review, I have no influence on our daily editorials and I am not a member of the editorial board. Conversely, Editorial Page Editor Doug Floyd does not have any role in deciding how we cover the news.

As for the Clinton-McCain treatment in Sunday's paper, you raise a good question about why McCain was on the front page and Clinton was not. Our judgment on this one was subjective. We felt the victory in South Carolina was more important for McCain at this stage of his campaign. As the story said, the victory gave his candidacy "velocity" and seemed to give his ability to win in the South some more strength. Clinton's victory, on the other hand, helps her campaign but wasn't portrayed as a make or break proposition for her.

It's not like we ignored the Clinton victory. There was a substantial story on Page A9 that reported the details of her victory.

The Nevada caucuses were finished earlier in the day and the news had already been widely reported on the web and on television. The South Carolina results came late in the day and represented fresher news, which is always a consideration for us.

I would also refer curious readers to our coverage of the New Hampshire primary results two weeks earlier. The large, six-column headline that day declared, "Clinton, McCain bounce back with big wins in New Hampshire." We haven't ignored the Clinton campaign and there will be plenty more stories about her and all of the other leading candidates.

I think it is fair to expect that some days, one candidate will get a bigger or more prominent story than another. That's the nature of news. In the end, however, our goal is to provide readers with an evenly balanced picture over the long haul.

--Gary Graham, Managing editor

Question: Your sub-headline on Friday, Jan. 11 "experts see region escaping full force of recession" is grossly irresponsible. We're in a recession??????

How could the editors of the S-R allow such a blatantly false and undocumented piece of opinionated drivel pass off as OBJECTIVE JOURNALISM?! You state that periods of "economic decline" specifically, the years 2000 and 2001 resulted in the U.S. "wobbling" in and out depression.

There is no doubt many will blame the current administration for this "wobbling", but before they do, let's look at facts. During the 1990's, the administration at that time rode the coattails and enjoyed the benefits of "Reaganomics". In 1994, that same administration, against federal law, granted China 'most favored nation' status thus increasing our trade deficit exponentially. Also, that same administration pushed N.A.F.T.A through as if it were a good thing...remember that "giant sucking sound" of jobs going south????

Finally, in the early 2000's, we've had irresponsible lenders and borrowers to lead us in the current mortgage mess. That said, for the S-R to shout on page one that we're in a recession is so professionally miscreant, I can only assume you're on drugs. Sober up and seek help.

--Mark Dana, Colburn, Idaho

Answer: I have to respectfully disagree with your interpretation of our headline and story about the economy that appeared in Friday's newspaper.

The main headline read, "Area economists hopeful" with a subhead that read, "Experts see region escaping full force of recession."

Headlines by nature have to be short and succinct. While you assume the headline writer concluded that we're in a recession, other readers understood that the headline refers to a potential recession. The story makes it abundantly clear that the economists we quoted talked specifically about the 'possibility' of a recession.

We count on intelligent readers to do more than just read the headlines. Those who read Bert Caldwell's story carefully could easily understand that the economists we quoted neither assumed or claimed we are in a recession at this moment.

We even quoted one expert as saying, "Use the word recession with a grain of salt. You can't say it's now. You can only say it was."

--Gary Graham, managing editor

Question: On Dec. 29 you ran a "cartoon" by Signe Wilkinson on page B5. I am surprised that in this day anyone would put "Morman Politians" in a separate category than they would "Christian Politians". "Mormons" are Christians and they believe in God our Eternal Father, in his son Jesus Christ, in the Holy Ghost and in the Bible, so long as it is translated correctly. In the past, persecution was intense because many believed they were not Christian and did not believe in the Bible. At times it is still reported that they are a "cult" rather than a Christian religion. To run that (cartoon) was a huge disservice to the "Mormon" religion. The only reason I can think of that Signe added the Mormon part in the cartoon is that there is a Mormon running for president, but the cartoon would have been just as good if it had lumped Mormons with the other "Christian Politicians" or unmentioned instead of singling them out as if they were neither Christian nor believers in the Bible. It would be no different than drawing "Catholic Politicians" with a picture of the Pope. Of course sometimes it is not such a bad thing to be separated from the "other or regular and usual" of any field. I would like to see a more unbiased coverage of the Presidential race by you (as you are the editor) and you should realize that cartoons influence a lot of people.

--Jeanie Gadberry

Response: I agree with Ms. Gadberry that Signe Wilkinson's decision to include the Book of Mormon in her cartoon was probably influenced by Mitt Romney's candidacy for president. But I suspect that a bigger consideration was the fact that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints formally recognizes a separate volume of scripture -- The Book of Mormon -- in addition to the Bible. Since the theme of the cartoon focused on various religious books, it seems like a logical image to help make her point.

Agreed, using the Bible as a text for "Christian" politicians while the Book of Mormon is labeled as a text for "Mormon" politicians might imply that Wilkinson does not consider Mormons Christians. I have no idea whether that's her view, but it's clearly a question on which there are different opinions.

That having been said, the editorial and op-ed pages of any newspaper are set aside for the expression of opinion, whether that of the editorial board, individual columnists, letter writers or, in this case, cartoonists. It's legitimate to expect the news reporting that appears elsewhere in the paper to be unbiased, but contributors to the opinion pages are expected to bring their own slant.

--Doug Floyd, editorial page editor

Question: I read and reread the story about the Bonagofski family. Unless I missed the reason for the story to have made the front page of the Sunday 12/30/07 paper, I was left with the question why this story made the front page?

I read the story thinking it was going to invoke compassion for this family and their struggles, it left me with complete opposite feelings. Sincerely,

--Abra Oakes

Answer: The Dec. 30 story on the Bonagofski family was part of a series titled "Whatever Happened To." Over the course of a week between Christmas and New Year's, the newspaper updated stories that made a significant impact on our community in 2007. The Bonagofski story was one of those that generated a lot of reader reaction the first time it appeared in April as part of our special Our Kids: Our Business project. We wanted to update the family's situation for readers. Their story is a complicated one that evokes different reactions from different people. Our intent - as with all of the "Whatever Happened To" stories - was to provide new information and to acknowledge that sometimes stories stick with readers long after the newspaper has moved on.

--Carla Savalli, Senior editor for local news