"Maybe you should be a little more honest with your intentions"

Reader-submitted complaint: Your attacks on our that paper are biased and ignorant. You have no knowledge of the process and work involved in publishing six papers on a weekly basis. Your actions reflect a hidden agenda stemming from your personal disdain for the newspaper. It is widely known your sentiments are brought on by your bad working relationship with members of the paper's staff. And calling it Name of Paper Withheld is idiotic irony, because you posted a photo of the front page. You're just another disgruntled person who feels wronged by the paper. This blog is one-sided and I have to point out the negative bias.

So let me get this straight. I have a legitimate criticism of your work, and you respond with charges of bias and personal insults, without responding to the original observation?

You don't work for the Republican National Committee, do you?

Biased and ignorant:
Biased, no, except maybe in the sense that I believe journalism is an honourable profession that deserves to be carried out with awe and reverence. I suppose that's a bias.

Ignorant, no. I was pointing out YOUR errors. Maybe you mean that my original post was rude. You might see it that way, but based on the way you've presented yourself, I'm confident in saying that you're much ruder than I am.

No knowledge of publishing six papers a week:
You are correct. I have only worked for one daily paper, and it published 14 papers a week (two editions each day). I've also worked for radio stations and online news organisations, but do not have any experience publishing six papers a week. Your assessment is technically accurate.

Hidden agenda:
My agenda is far from hidden. My goal is to restore integrity to Canadian journalism, from the way stories are assigned to the care that is taken with details like facts and grammar. I have posted about this many times. No individual post fully reflects my agenda; you need to read the full body of my work to see my style.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating: Traditionally, members of the media have collectively called out the worst offenders in their midst. Media critics, ombudsmen and senior journalists are responsible for informally policing their industry. Sadly, this is not common in Canada. This may be why my columns provoke such a reaction from some working journalists: they know I'm right, but they can't believe I'm saying it.

Personal disdain for the newspaper:
Not even close. In fact, I am profoundly discouraged by your errors, because I think you can be so much better. I believe strongly in the importance of the press. That respect for journalism is at the core of every single post I have ever written on the topic.

Bad working relationship with the paper's staff:
This is news to me. Over the past few years, I've received a number of personal e-mails and phone calls from your staff. I've hung out with them and had them over for dinner. In fact, I've been accused of being TOO chummy with them. Your staff are lovely people and I'm always pleased to hear from them. You personally may not like me, and that's OK. But don't bring your staff into this.

Idiotic irony because of the photo:
Ah, I see what you mean. You only read one post and thought this was a pathetic attempt at a joke. Actually, that's the name I use for your paper. I don't use the name of our town on the blog, either. It's not irony, but I understand why you might think it was stupid if you had never been here before. In the same way, I ought to mention that the beheading reference is yet another running bit here on the blog. You personally are in no danger. It's a joke from long ago. My long-time readers understood what I meant.

Disgruntled person who feels wronged by the paper:
If you mean that I as a reader feel that I deserve more than you're providing, you are correct. I don't think you have ever "wronged" me personally, though. As I said before, your staff are amazing people. I really like dealing with them and I always go out of my way to help them. I've been in their position before, and I understand how they feel. No, I'm not disgruntled. You seem disgruntled.

One-sided and negative bias:
I think you only read one post before you accused me of this. It's good to know that you do your research. This blog is not one-sided: it includes participants who are current and former journalists, and they always make their opinions known. I write about many different journalism issues, and I'm far from one-sided. In fact, I have often written about the challenges you face every day. I've defended you when you've done a good job. The only bias here is my general hope that journalism will get better. I'll willingly admit to that.

Thanks for your complaints.