Deputy Opinion Page Editor Mike Craft sent me a couple of e-mails last week that contained several letters to the editor critical of The Star. I was surprised by the volume because we hadn't run any stories that touched on the usual hot issues that prompt an outpouring of criticism: illegal immigration, global warming and growth. There are others, but those are the big three.

The Opinion staff forwards critical letters to me as a courtesy. I don't like surprises, and certainly not surprises in which the criticism points out an error that we have not properly addressed. We welcome critical letters and routinely run them, even when we know the criticism is wrong.

Some time ago, a businessman asked me whether it made good business sense to run critical letters, especially since we seldom, if ever, respond to them in print. I don't think he was convinced by my explanation that a newspaper is not a typical business. I explained to him that we are also a public trust, and our business depends on being an open forum. Our stock in trade is credibility, and there is no credibility when we don't allow our readers to interact, offering differing opinions, ideas and explanations.

There are newspapers that refuse to run letters critical of their coverage or editorial stances. Others, mainly the larger papers, employ an ombudsman to act as a referee in disputes with readers. And there are some that regularly provide rebuttal to criticism in the form of an editor's note that accompanies the critical letter.

I have an editor friend who devotes his weekly column to responding to critical letters. Although he occasionally acknowledges the validity of the criticism, as often as not, he takes on the letter writer and responds in kind. As much as I admire and respect this editor, I don't agree with his approach.

We generally don't rebut criticism for a number of reasons. For one, we simply can't afford an ombudsman. For another, arguing in print with a letter writer is most often unseemly and unfair. It makes us look overly sensitive and defensive and unfairly gives us the last word. That is not what the Opinion pages, and especially the letters to the editor, are about. Credibility depends on fairness.

The main reason we rarely rebut critical letters is grounded in a much more fundamental principle. It is the guiding E.W. Scripps principle as symbolized by the lighthouse logo: "Give light and the people will find their own way." It is our belief that wherever the light is shined, even when it is shined on us, our readers will find the truth for themselves.

This is not meant to be a "look at us, aren't we wonderful" kind of explanation. It is not news to anyone that we make mistakes. It also is not news that our system of acknowledging and correcting mistakes is at times balky and awkward. We don't need to compound matters by engaging in spats with readers to demonstrate our righteousness. If we are to remain faithful to our principles, we must allow our readers to have their say without whining, self-serving explanations, or denials.

We are human, although that might come as news to some, and valid or not, criticism does sting. Yet, we understand that not accepting criticism makes for an unhealthy relationship with our readers and advertising customers and, ultimately, an unsuccessful newspaper, both as a business and a trusted source of information.

As I read the list of critical letters, I was pleasantly surprised for two reasons. The first was that the criticism was all over the board and not one of the hot topics. The second, and far more pleasant realization, was just how engaged readers were with the newspaper. From a lengthy criticism about the depth of our coverage of the National Day of Prayer, to deep disappointment over our lack of coverage of a local science fair, to an accusation that our economic reporting was slanted because of our corporate ownership, the readers demonstrated their relationship with the newspaper is healthy, engaged and ongoing. That is enough to warm any editor's heart.

So, keep those letters coming. The more we are challenged, the more we are forced to think about what we do. The more honest dialogue we have with our readers, the better we become. And be assured, just because we don't respond doesn't mean we aren't listening.

Joe R. Howry is editor of The Star. He can be reached by phone at 437-0200 or by e-mail at jhowry@VenturaCountyStar.com.