By Deborah Howell
Sunday, June 11, 2006

Readers can react intensely to stories and commentary on hot-button issues; they say The Post should not print articles they find offensive.

Three articles in the past few days are excellent examples. They are a June 3 story by Karl Vick about why Iranians like their president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; a June 6 op-ed column by George F. Will on the 25th anniversary of the identification of AIDS; and a June 4 piece in Outlook about a woman who had an abortion and blamed conservative politics for the lack of over-the-counter emergency contraception.

One reader called the Iranian president "a monster" and wrote: "Ahmadinejad is publicly proclaiming his goals, and rallying support around the world for plans that make Hitler seem tame, and you can't see past the 'charisma' to his true evil intent to destroy Israel and promote global jihad?"

The Post has run dozens of stories about the rise of Ahmadinejad, and most have been filled with comments quite critical of the Iranian president, including a remark by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that he is "a psychopath of the worst kind."

It's important for readers to know why Iranians elected Ahmadinejad and how ordinary citizens view him. It reveals a lot about what the United States is up against in its diplomatic efforts to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The June 3 story told me that Ahmadinejad is a hard-working retail politician who can pack Iranians into a soccer stadium and who invites people to send him bushels of private letters to ask for what they and their families need.

Readers sometimes equate favorable quotes with Post support. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Post editorials haven't had a good word to say about Ahmadinejad, though they support a negotiated settlement of the nuclear issue.

A gay reader was insulted by George F. Will's column on AIDS that graphically said how some gay men become infected with HIV and also said that gay men could have done much more to curb the spread of the disease.

The reader wrote: "Enough is enough. Does anyone at The Post even care about human dignity, or is this all now just a matter of opinion, or one's political viewpoint? . . . I am sick of [gay people] being ignored and belittled by The Post and those who write in its pages. I don't care that The Post runs a few half-hearted editorials asking if we can't all get along on gay marriage. You have got to recognize these are people's civil rights and feelings you are dealing with."

The graphic nature of Will's column made me wince, too. That response probably came because my gay brother, Ghent Howell, died of AIDS in 1998. Will is the supreme rationalist, and his column is always his opinion, like it or not. Other Post columnists, Eugene Robinson and Colbert I. King, to name two, have often written in support of gays on civil rights and other issues. (Of course, that also brings negative mail.)

The Post covers gay issues and has a number of gay staff members; some readers say the paper devotes too much space to those issues.

Among the more notable recent stories: the effort by gay parents to bring their children to the White House Easter Egg Roll; and Anne Hull's project -- 10 months in the making -- on what it means to be young and gay for a white man in Oklahoma and a black woman in New Jersey. That story was a 2005 Pulitzer finalist. One lapse: The Post was slow to report on the gay rights legislation before the D.C. Council.

Dana L. (editors agreed to withhold her last name) is a 42-year-old lawyer and writer living in Virginia who wrote last Sunday in Outlook about having an abortion. The lead was: "The conservative politics of the Bush administration forced me to have an abortion I didn't want." She said Plan B, an emergency contraceptive pill that can prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of intercourse, should be available over the counter.

Most mail was from men, though this came from Ruth Tatlock of Herndon: "She is blaming everybody except herself and her husband, who are the truly 'guilty' persons. To say that the government made her have an abortion is so absurd I can't believe that she could even reach that idea, and to think that The Post let her get front-page exposure [in Outlook] is even more absurd. Imagine, blaming the Bush administration for having to have an abortion after having unprotected sex! At 42!"

Several readers wanted to know how the article came to The Post. Susan Glasser, the new Outlook editor, said, "The piece came in through an acquaintance of one of our editors. We thought it was a very powerful personal perspective on an important and very much in-the-news ongoing public policy debate." Readers questioned why Dana L. did not go to Planned Parenthood for Plan B. In an online chat that can be found on http://www.washingtonpost.com , she said that in her panicky search for a prescription, she did not think to do so in time.

Some readers bet that The Post would not run something as provocative from an abortion opponent. "Of course I would," said Glasser, who said she received substantial positive feedback -- all from women.

Outlook, to which Glasser has brought a number of changes recently, has run several opinion pieces that have brought strong reader reaction. In the words of Glasser's deputy, Carlos Lozada, "Outlook should mount a weekly assault on conventional wisdom."

Post readers can expect reporting and commentary that pokes, prods, provokes. That's in the job description of a good newspaper. If readers feel The Post is not providing a wide enough range, they should drop me a line.

Deborah Howell can be reached at 202-334-7582 or atombudsman@washpost.com.