Let me also say that I have a lot of respect for Nathaniel Hoffman's writing and reporting. He is a skilled, serious journalist. I just don't agree with his push-polling assertion — and it's a pretty strong charge that merited a response.

Here's why.

Every edition of the newspaper is open to criticism: Did we cover the right story? Did we play it right? Was our editorial on the mark or was it poorly written and shoddily researched? Did a column have the right tone or did it cross the line to personal attack? That's all in a day's work — and Don, you've certainly never been shy about criticizing us.

Most of the time, the criticism we get from other media or from blogs is really a matter of opinion or taste. I'm actually pretty thick-skinned about that, and let most of it stand.

But suggesting that a survey question is a “push poll” suggests that our paper used the survey — and the news page — to advance an agenda. Because that's what push-pollsters do. That's why their tactics are sleazy; I suspect Nathaniel and I would be in complete agreement there.

Lumping us in with the push-pollsters really questions our ethics. Take the article and the headline literally, and that is the conclusion you have to draw. And that is a serious charge.

Nathaniel sent me an e-mail Thursday saying that he wasn't suggesting we had an agenda — just that we used a biased question. (I've incorporated that into my blog). The problem is, calling the survey question a push-poll does suggest we had an agenda. In my opinion, you simply cannot get around that.

Much more often than not, I hold my tongue about criticism — from you, from other bloggers and fellow journalists, from commenters on my blog. I weigh in sparingly, and only when I think a criticism is factually incorrect or fundamentally misleading. That's where I am today.

That's also why my blog focused only on Nathaniel's “push-poll” language. I don't necessarily agree with his other criticisms of the survey, but they come down to a simple matter of opinion.

If nothing else, Nathaniel's story and the ensuing blog debate have started a good discussion about the way the media should use survey information. As we continue our working relationship with POPULUS, that's a useful discussion — more useful than, say, a debate about square vs. round coffee tables. (Maybe I should add that one to my to-do list).

Anyway, thanks for giving me a chance to elaborate.

Kevin Richert