Several readers wondered why we took so long to write about John Edwards’ affair with a former videographer for his campaign. A typical note closed with the question, “Would you have done the same if he were a Republican?” Frequent correspondent Rick Atkinson says he understands we are reluctant to use the National Enquirer as a source, but adds that we need to get with modern times. Once a story has reached the Drudge Report, he says, it’s news, period.

We like to think big, but we’re just a humble regional paper. Our national staff is pretty much fully occupied following stories about things happening to, or because of, Texans. So when the National Enquirer first alleged that Mr. Edwards was having an affair, we did not assign anyone to pursue him in search of verification. We generally depend upon wire services, like the Associated Press, to develop those sorts of national stories. The AP wrote one short story in 2007, in which Mr. Edwards denied the Enquirer’s allegation that he’d cheated on his wife. Most American papers made little of that story, probably because the Enquirer offered no proof. Even if we had run the story prominently, it would have amounted to an inconclusive argument, and our readers would have had absolutely no way to judge who was telling the truth.

The Enquirer followed that story recently with a report in which it claimed to have followed Mr. Edwards to a California hotel room where his former paramour was staying. By then, Mr. Edwards had dropped out of the presidential race. The mainstream wire services didn’t immediately pursue that story, either, perhaps because Mr. Edwards was no longer a candidate, perhaps because they felt some sympathy for his wife, and perhaps because the Enquirer claimed to have some key evidence – photos of Mr. Edwards with the baby in question – that it didn’t share publicly. Within a few weeks, the Enquirer did publish those photos. At that point, we ran a story inside the paper. Then Mr. Edwards conceded that he had had an affair. We covered that on our front page. In the same story, political reporter Gromer Jeffers Jr. broke the news that Dallas attorney Fred Baron, who was chairman of Mr. Edwards’ presidential finance committee, had been paying living expenses for Mr. Edwards’ former mistress, Rielle Hunter.

Could we have printed something sooner? In hindsight, sure. But one decides these things based on what one knows at the time. We decided to follow the generally sound principle that nothing is news merely because a supermarket tabloid says it is. The same goes for the Drudge Report, which is a very interesting Web site that specializes in spotlighting news reports from various media organizations. Matt Drudge once said, “I guess I’m 80 percent accurate,” and that’s probably good enough for a Web site that proudly mixes fact and gossip. We try to aim for 100 percent – a usually unattainable goal, but a noble one. If something’s on the Drudge Report, that might make it a kind of news, in the “Look what’s on Drudge Report!” sense. But it is not necessarily news that’s worthy of serious readers’ time and attention – especially if the only source is, still, a supermarket tabloid.

Were we delaying publication because Mr. Edwards was a Democrat? I don’t think so. Under the right circumstances, the news media have covered Democrats’ sexual and factual problems in excruciating detail. Back in the mid-90s, I was among several Morning News reporters who devoted huge amounts of time and money to covering President Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes. And, so far in this campaign, I don’t see the media making much of Republican candidate John McCain’s admitted (but long-ago) problems with marital fidelity. I think maybe many editors these days are loathe to make too much of politicians’ personal lives, unless they seem directly relevant to their jobs.

I’m curious about how readers feel about this. Should we make a point of relaying rumors and reports that, by our usual standards, we can’t verify? Should we run stories sometimes saying, “We’re not at all sure this is true, but we thought it might be interesting?”

Our headlines on the American women’s gymnastics team’s silver medal – “U.S. women stumble, settle for silver,” and “Not their day” – offended a few readers. Margaret Lacefield of Plano rather eloquently stated their case: “The Womens Gymnastic Team won a SILVER MEDAL in the Olympics. They were second in the entire WORLD. They worked, trained and sacrificed for years. They overcame major injuries at the games. They held it together during some problems in executing their routines. Yet they still earned a medal. … Isn’t this accomplishment worthy of some pride and remarks of praise? What is your editors’ problem?”

One of my favorite soccer announcers uses a great phrase to describe insufficient efforts by great players: “He’s not having a good day, by his own high standards.” That was the sentiment behind both those headlines. The U.S. women’s team performed superbly until the team finals. But then, according to their coach and the athletes themselves, they stumbled. They went from being favorites to finishing second. So the headlines are reasonable, if the standard is performance vs. expectations.

That said, I’m not sure we earned a perfect score with “settle for silver.” The words have the advantage of strength, pithiness and alliteration, but they may convey the notion that the young women gave up, or quit trying for gold. Certainly, that’s not a message we meant to send. And I don’t think we meant to say that the silver medal was a bad result, or that the young women didn’t perform brilliantly and bravely. Anyone who saw the competition had to be inspired by it.

Craig Thayer writes to ask why we haven’t covered stories on the Internet about a former Apollo 14 astronaut, Dr. Edgar Mitchell, telling British radio that alien visitations are real and that the government has kept them secret for the past 60 years. “I have found this story on a plethora of Web sites, but as usual the mainstream media ignores it,” he says.

This turns out to be an old story. Dr. Mitchell first made such claims as long ago as 1996. We first reported them in 1997. Dr. Mitchell hasn’t claimed that he has firsthand knowledge of alien visitations, so far as I can determine. He seems to be relying on second- or third-hand reports from friends or acquaintances. NASA flatly denies his assertions. I don’t know what to make of them, but, as an editor, I don’t find the repetition of his claims to be particularly newsworthy.

John Larrimer writes to wonder why we sometimes misreport military and weapons terminology. He cites a story in which we report that police found “a silver and black .25-millimeter handgun.” Then he adds, “There is no such thing as a .25 millimeter handgun. A quarter of a millimeter is not much bigger than a human hair, hardly of a diameter to comprise the necessary mass for an effective handgun projectile.” He closes with some advice: “Get a copy editor who is a vet, or hire a retired master sergeant to sit in a nearby gin joint and proofread the military articles.”

I’m going to plead somewhat guilty to this. We do have some vets on the staff, but they can’t read everything. So, yes, I’ve seen us call an armored personnel carrier a “tank,” and I’ve seen us refer to a .50-caliber machine gun as a .50 millimeter weapon. I think this partly reflects the fact that relatively few of our editors, like relatively few civilians in almost any profession, have ever served in the military. Many of the mistakes come to us in wire stories. We simply pass them on. But we’re responsible for what we print. And these details do matter. We’re going to try to launch a quick educational effort to train our folks on things like the difference between an artillery shell and a bomb (Hint: Airplanes seldom drop “shells.”)

Edwin Blair writes to ask, “What ever happened to the Dallas Zoo elephant they wanted to ship to Mexico? I heard Angela Hunt had found a place in Tennessee for her to go. Any update?”

Mr. Blair, I have saved your note since July 8, hoping there’d be an update. All I can tell you so far is that this elephant has become a surprisingly big cause among animal rights activists, and Ms. Hunt has done a good bit of investigative reporting on the pros and cons of her potential new homes in Tennessee and Mexico. Ms. Hunt, who’s invested enough time in the issue to have her opinion taken seriously, clearly favors the Tennessee site. But she’s on the City Council, and theoretically these sorts of decisions are made by zoo officials. So far, they haven’t made a final call.

Cindy Lantz of Red Oak wrote to urge that we look into a story about an Ellis County judge in a child-custody case who’d not signed a court order to implement the verdict of a jury on which she served. “These children remain at great risk for further abuse because this case remains in limbo,” she said. “If no ruling is made by Sept. 2, 2008, these children can be returned to their mother, at whose hand they have suffered unthinkable abuse.”

Ms. Lantz, we wrote about this case on Aug. 11. Supporters of the judge, Greg Wilhelm, said he was delaying his ruling to ensure that he’d thoroughly considered the best interests of the children. A few days after our story appeared, Judge Wilhelm signed the court order implementing the jury verdict. The judge himself has never commented on the case or on the reasons for the delay. Thank you for calling this situation to our attention.