The copy of Current you’re holding is one of five distinctly different editions we published today for the communities we serve. And, as is the case every week, a wide array of content aims to serve your needs. On occasion, some of that content raises ire or provokes an unexpected response from one or more readers. Such was the case last week in response to a story Current reported and wrote, only to have it interpreted in a way that was different from what we foresaw. A local government official, viewing it differently, launched into a heavy phone-and-e-mail barrage. He was hot – and that’s an understatement. Naturally, it caught our attention, and we began to dig into his accusations. In the end, it was a matter of construal; the official saw it one way, the reporter and we another. It’s OK to agree to disagree, and for the moment that is where we are. Factually and objectively, the reporter’s work was right on the money. A source’s quote caused some unrest with the official, but we don’t edit quotes for content; had we opted to omit the quote, a passage of the story would have been left with no context. All this spawned a broader discussion here in the Executive Suite of World Headquarters about fairness and accuracy. Unless we hear from our readership – and yes, believe it or not, we’re honestly glad to have had the exchange with the official – we don’t really know whether we could have been sharper when reporting on any particular story. We set out each day to make sure we excel at being fair and accurate across our multiple platforms. If we are not, in your estimation, we want to know about it. Write us at email@example.com, please. And you can bet that if we have erred, we will correct our error straightaway.