All of our stories and headlines get a fair amount of scrutiny but when it comes to what is written about the Hawaii Superferry, everyone seems to have a magnifying glass.

Because of the variety of strong opinions about the Superferry, we have received more reaction about this issue than normal.

Some have accused us of slanting our articles against the Superferry simply because we have closely examined all aspects of the story.

A good example was our computer-assisted study that detailed the list of campaign contributions and lobbying fees from Superferry representatives to elected officials. For Superferry supporters, the story was much ado about nothing because it involved $175,000 over three years. For those who question the need for the vessel or insist that it pass environmental review, our report confirmed all kinds of political shenanigans that only they seemed to discover.

We also documented that two federal agencies in 2005 raised concerns about the likelihood of collisions between the ferry and humpback whales. Another story revealed that Superferry officials told the state in early discussions on interisland ferry service that requiring an environmental assessment could jeopardize federal financing and essentially halt the project.

While we have been aggressive about looking into the many facets of this important issue, we have found it difficult to guard against some generalizations that have crept into stories. For instance, we sometimes have characterized those who want an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement as "environmentalists" when it's difficult to know who is or who is not an environmentalist, other than those who advocate on behalf of the environment. Obviously, there are many who could fit into that category.

Harry Boranian, a Kaua'i resident who testified in favor of the ferry at the Oct. 21 public hearing, said only one person who spoke at the meeting could be considered a true environmentalist, whom he describes as a scientist "engaged in the study of planet Earth." Whether you agree with Boranian's definition isn't the point. Labels, whether they be "ecologist" or "activist" or "anti-Superferry" or "pro-Superferry" need to be carefully considered and vetted.

Our reporters try to use the occupations of those who are involved on either side of the Superferry debate. But they (or their editors) sometimes will group people together for simplicity's sake.

"This is something I have tried to avoid in my stories, but sometimes when I've tried to broaden the opposition some editors have changed copy to read 'environmentalists' or 'environmental groups' to keep things concise," said Christie Wilson, one of our lead writers on the Superferry. "I've tried to include Hawaiians, canoe paddlers, farmers and others, or at the very least I've tried to say 'environmentalists and others.' I agree we shouldn't lump everyone under the same label and should avoid characterizing this as environmentalists versus state/Superferry. Unfortunately, like 'feminist' and 'activist,' the term 'environmentalist' has become equated with fringe radicalism — that's why you see pro-ferry people often refer to antis as 'tree huggers.' "

Failure to be precise opens us up to criticism, as do overly broad headlines that suggest everyone is on one side of the issue or the other.

In Monday's edition, after the Kaua'i public hearing, we wrote "Kaua'i says ferry session is wrong" in our headline and after the Maui hearing, we used "Maui speaks out against ferry" as the banner headline. Many readers rightfully took us to task over the wording. Online, we wrote a headline that noted "Maui opposes Hawaii Superferry bailout" when there was no bailout described in the story.

It's indefensible to say that a whole island feels one way when 300 to 400 at most are showing up to each of these hearings. We have stressed to editors that we need to be careful when we draw a blanket conclusion about what people do and do not support.

By the way, several readers have suggested we conduct a poll to figure out how many people really support the Superferry. We considered it but after much discussion, rejected the idea. There is no public vote expected on this issue and if there was, what would people be supporting? An EIS, an EA, the ability of the Superferry to sail at all and under what restrictions? Would it be voted on by island or through a statewide vote? And would every other such project face a similar vote?

We'll skip the polls and continue to dig into an issue that everyone agrees needs fuller and deeper explanation.