I didn’t get the memo, but apparently, last week was “Bark at Bolejack Week.” It started with the reader who said she hid last week’s paper from her son lest he see the front-page photo of the “corpse.” With all the beauty of fall, she wondered in an e-mail message, why did we showcase the ugly?

Without meaning to sound glib, the answer is that people who make corpses are quotable; fall foliage is not. In other words, it’s the people who make stories, and the corpse guy made for a good Halloween week story. Still, instinct told me the photo might ruffle a few feathers; that’s why the tagline over the picture said, “It’s only make-believe.”

That apparently didn’t suffice, but I salute the reader for using her parental right to determine what her child does and doesn’t see. I wish more parents would take responsibility for what their children read and view.

Next came the e-mail from the gentleman who said the Herald was wrong to print letters to the editor that disparaged others. He was referring to those people who, like our sheriff, have spoken unkindly of the county’s Latino population. A newspaper, the reader said, condones prejudice when it publishes prejudice.

That’s not how I see it. I have always thought of The Herald’s editorial page as a printed version of a Main Street diner, a place for the free exchange of ideas, including ones I disagree with. Or especially the ones I disagree with. As the Herald’s editor, I can have as much say as I want whenever I want. I happen to think Latinos have done much for this county’s economy and culture. For those who think otherwise, I feel an obligation to let them have their say.

And for the record, I don’t control the flow of letters to the editor. After our sheriff, in my view, embarrassed himself and his county, most of the letters that came in were from people backing him. I ran the letters in direct proportion to whether they supported the sheriff or not. To have done otherwise would have skewed the debate. I don’t think the guy in charge of letters to the editor should do that.

The final complaint came from a friend who said I let my personal politics color my news judgment last week. Specifically, because I’m a Republican, I let a diner at Jones’ Lunch call Barack Obama a Muslim. More specifically, because I wanted McCain to win, I let that diner link Obama to a religion that some Americans associate with terrorism.

That’s simply not true. In fact, I winced when I read the diner’s comments to a Herald reporter. Still, I let the comment run because that attack on Obama was news to no one. Questions about his faith are months old. In other words, it’s not like I let someone drop a bombshell that had the potential, at the 11th hour, to cost Obama victory. I wouldn’t do that.

But neither do I censor what people say to the Herald. In the case in question, a reporter asked diners at Jones’ Lunch what was on their mind as the election approached. People spoke, and the reporter reported. It was as simple as that, no political agenda.

The underlying theme of last week’s critiques was that I showed poor judgment. Now, you have to have thick skin to be a newspaper editor, but I’d be lying if I said the criticism didn’t hurt. The only comfort I take from the last week is that people are reading the paper. Even better, they care enough to give the editor a piece of their mind.