The Denver Post ran a strange letter to the editor in its opinion section Nov. 24. It was a letter from an editor. But it wasn't written by anyone at the Post.

Its author was the editor-in-chief of ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom, and it corrected some assertions in a previous letter about a ProPublica article that ran Nov. 17 on the Post's front page. The editor's letter explained why the ProPublica story didn't reflect a "political agenda," and it defended the basic journalistic practice of telling the truth, based on credible sources.

The ProPublica letter is a great example of how editors at the dailies should respond to misinformed letters to the editor that attack journalism.

You don't see many responses by journalists on the letters page. In fact, the Rocky Mountain News ran just one "editor's note" there this year, responding to a letter writer's gripe that ballots were printed in Spanish. Last year, seven editor's notes were printed, mostly about why regular features had been killed or moved, according to Rocky letters editor Steve Oelrich.

Post editors are equally hushed when it comes to responding to letters. The paper ran three editor's notes this year, and seven in 2007, making short clarifications or explanations.

Why not respond more often?

"One reason is that in many cases, it can sound like the newspaper is trying to have the last word in an argument," says Cohen Peart, letters editor at the Post.

In a response to a letter to the editor from an official at the Department of Labor, Rocky editor and publisher John Temple wrote in August that it's "rare" for him to respond to letters because he believes in "giving individuals the chance to have their say."

But journalists at the dailies will often respond to e-mails from readers. They'd better serve the public interest - and help correct misconceptions about journalism - if they skipped a reply or two to private e-mails and responded publicly to some of the attacks in letters.

The longstanding passive approach, with almost all letters going unanswered, is outdated. People want journalists to converse.

ProPublica credible. The Post made the right decision Nov. 17 in running the ProPublica article discussed above. The piece, about the effects of a method of natural gas extraction, was relevant to Colorado, and the journalistic credentials of ProPublica are solid. Abrahm Lustgarten, who wrote the story, has contributed to The New York Times and The Washington Post, among other publications.

Investigations like this, conducted by nonprofit news organizations with funding from liberal or conservative foundations, will be an important component of journalism's future, as jobs are shed.

They can help fill the investigative gap and the Post should be congratulated for having the guts to print the piece.

Loving two newspapers. Here's a small example of how we benefit from having reporters from two newspapers covering an issue: The Rocky reported Nov. 25 that the cost estimate for the FasTracks rail line to Longmont and Boulder had increased by 60 percent while ridership projections had decreased by half, making the northwest line "three times more expensive per user than the next-most costly" line. But this hasn't led to any changes in the FasTracks plan. An important and original story, for sure.

On the same day, the Post ran an equally important and enterprising story: the cost of raw materials like steel and copper has plummeted since midsummer, when the latest FasTracks cost increase was calculated. The increase in materials prices accounted for about $1.5 billion of the latest $2 billion cost increase for FasTracks. So, with the cost of raw materials dropping, the estimated cost of FasTracks could decrease drastically.

It's clear that the debate about whether and how to trim FasTracks is enriched by both these stories.

What about Ewegen? The Post has subscribers who've been reading articles by Bob Ewegen for 36 years.

He vanished from the Post's editorial page last month, without a goodbye column or any explanation. It turns out he retired, according to Post editorial page editor Dan Haley.

The Post should have let us know what happened to him. Not doing so makes the newspaper look cold and disconnected - at a time when it is properly trying to develop more personal and interactive relationships with readers.

"We don't really have a set standard or policy for announcing the departure of employees in the newspaper," Haley e-mailed me. "But I do understand your point."

Jason Salzman, president of Effect Communications, is the author of Making the News: A Guide for Activists and Nonprofits. Reach him at salzmanj@RockyMountainNews.com.