Ask me. Unasked questions remain unanswered, and you deserve answers.

A traffic cop arrives at a three-vehicle accident.

A fire hydrant is blowing water in the air with a car against it, a pickup truck is through the window of a building and another is on its side in the middle of the road.

He stands back, scratches his head and wonders aloud, “How in the world do these things happen?”

I felt that way Friday when I arrived at work and discovered that a page intended for the Sunday, Nov. 20, paper had mysteriously appeared in the City edition more than a week early. Not only that, but Mark LaFlamme’s column in that edition was cut off and did not continue on the assigned jump page.

Baffling? Clearly.

But many of the things we do as a newspaper probably leave you baffled. That’s why, after Friday’s mayhem, I’m reviving the blog/column that I started last winter, Starting Point, with a new theme

Instead of writing about issues, I’ll try to answer your questions and complaints about how we cover the news. And, perhaps, I’ll ask you a question or two about how we covered something.

We get a variety of complaints and questions every day from readers, and we try to respond to them all.

But, without doubt, if one person asks, many others probably have the same question. But, since it goes unasked, it remains unanswered.

Why, for instance, did we use a smiling photo of the mayor recently under a headline announcing that he had been charged with a misdemeanor sex crime?

Good question.

We had a long debate and discussion about that ourselves. Many in our newsroom felt, and still feel, that the photo was inappropriate. It was taken at a cocktail party the mayor was attending after the charges had been filed in court. He was, when the photo was snapped, talking about the city’s highly successful redevelopment efforts. Naturally, he was grinning broadly.

It’s always best to have a photo of the person discussing the issue covered in the story. And, without doubt, the mayor would not have been smiling about such charges.

Perhaps we should have run a file photo, or even no photo at all.

But, there was also an alternative argument in the newsroom: We had tried to hook up with the mayor that afternoon for an interview and photo, but we had called too late. He explained that he was out the door and on his way to Portland.

So, we redirected a photographer, who happened to be in the Portland area, to the mayor’s destination to take a photo.

So, as some folks complained, did the photo show the mayor laughing off the charges? Or, perhaps, did it simply show he was confident of his innocence and going on with his life and responsibilities?

In the end, the call to use the photo that night was mine. Having the benefit of several days to reflect, I think I made the wrong decision.

What resulted was such a jarring incongruence of images – the serious charges on one hand and the smiling mayor on the other – that it distracted from the telling of the news story.

I think our readers would have been better served with some more neutral file photo.

What do you think? I’d like to know about that or about anything else on your mind.

You can reach me several ways:

Best: Go to our Web site, www.sunjournal.com. Click on the “Starting Point” and give me your opinion.

Next best: Send me an e-mail at the address that appears below. Let me know if I can or cannot use your name in the paper.

Least best: Or, call me at 784-7045, ext. 2104, but be warned: During the day, I am here, there and everywhere at the Sun Journal and I may not be at my desk. Leave me a message.

Ask me anything about the Sun Journal and our handling of the news.

And, about those mistakes in Friday’s paper … I’m still scratching my head, but I’ll get back to you as soon as I figure it out.

Rex Rhoades is executive editor of the Sun Journal. He can be reached at [email protected].