I've spoken to many readers about The Star's recent investigation Beef's Raw Edges. Opinions have varied, and I've heard several good criticisms and questions.

I just received email from Janet M. Riley, Senior Vice President, Public Affairs and Member Services with the American Meat Institute. She brought up a point that I had considered myself while reading the series:

Already I'm hearing from readers who are encouraging The Star to cover today's horrible mass killings in Connecticut through a political lens.

The first caller wanted "the mainstream media to point out how our society is crumbling under this terrible president."

Another says news coverage "should start and end with the obvious, immediate need to ban all guns."

I occasionally hear from readers who really dislike print edition pages with too many visual elements. Case in point: A caller just now who "just can't believe" today's big two-page wrap around the FYI section.

"It's just awful," she told me. "All this color, everywhere -- it's just gross. Whatever happened to a newspaper page that's in black and white, maybe with a photograph or two. I worked in (the design field), and we always said getting attention on part of the page was much better than taking the whole page up with one single thing. This -- it's just too bold and hard on the eyes."

This week saw publication of The Star's investigation of the beef industry, particularly looking at the practice of mechanical tenderization. This process uses small blades to puncture the meat, sometimes carrying contaminants such as E. coli from the surface deep into the muscle tissue, where it may not be killed by cooking as it would on the exterior.

By and large, the comments I heard about the series have been positive.

"I am thoroughly enjoying your series on Big Beef - and am astonished at what I did not know," wrote one.

Here's a point from a reader about a headline on a wire item in yesterday's paper that read "Family massacred."

Really, would that have been the headline had it not been a Native American family? Perpetuating stereotypes? I don't recall other family tragedies being referred to as "massacres". Perhaps that is only used when "the Injuns" are involved.

I checked The Star's past stories in the electronic library and found that word has been used for a wide range of stories about killings. However, who am I or anyone else to question this particular reader's take?

An emailer makes an interesting and valid point in regards to a brief in Sunday's paper about a man who shot and killed his own son. A version of the same story is here.

I spoke with a caller this morning who criticized the level of detail in a story that led the Local section and has been playing on the front page of KansasCity.com all day.

An emailer today posed a question I hear from time to time about people who write in to Letters in the Opinion section:

"Is it too naive for me to wonder if The Star could choose to relay (positive, not scurrilous) comments from readers to writers? That would constitute a public service by facilitating communication between like-minded citizens, I would think."

He underlined again that he would expect this only for positive feedback.

The various stories about the Jovan Belcher murder/suicide have been the most popular items all week on KansasCity.com. But popularity isn't necessarily the driving factor in deciding what's important, and this emailer says "enough."

A reader emailed me, confused at a page he found on KansasCity.com. It's a short list of facts about Amtrak, with a credit line from an organization called Face the Facts USA.

"Is this an editorial?" wrote my emailer. "If so, it is not labeled as such, that I see. Is this an advertisement? If so, it is not labeled as such, that I see. It is political propaganda, at the least, and is either an advertisement, or something else."