Good newspapers, and Stars and Stripes is one, don’t try to push any political or cultural agenda in the news columns. Sure, the selection of what goes in a paper comes from the personal judgments of the editors. The choice is supposed to be based on the relative importance of what is to be reported, and what you’d expect the readers’ interests to be. But readers bring their own points of view to the process, and then there can be a conflict. That’s what’s happened with some stories Stripes ran this month.

Four letters to the editor have come in criticizing the judgment — even the motives — of Stripes editors in connection with four published articles. There’s nothing especially unusual about a reader thinking there may be something fishy behind the decision to print a particular story. That can happen when a reader knows a lot and/or feels deeply about the subject of the suspect article.

The question was posed flatly by a reader who wondered about a Los Angeles Times article that Stripes ran in its Dec. 2 Mideast edition about a teenage Muslim girl in Texas. She is portrayed as trying to reconcile her upbringing with secular teen pursuits — treading “carefully between punk and Islam,” as a headline put it. “While the story is interesting,” the reader wrote, “I have to wonder, is there some kind of hidden motive in posting stories like this?” The writer has more than a passing interest in the life of Muslims. He is a servicemember based currently in Iraq, Sgt. Jeremy Douglas. “What about the military Muslims who are torn between their communities, the military and religion? … Does it (the story) provide cultural knowledge of the places we are all serving in? Or is there another motive?” he asked. The sergeant didn’t explain what other motive there might be.

Another writer, 1st Lt. Tony Soika of Camp Speicher, Iraq, found it offensive that on Dec. 7, the anniversary of the Pearl Harbor, Stripes would run a front-page story about the late Mitsuo Fuchida, a wartime Japanese pilot who led attacks on U.S. forces in the Pacific. Lt. Soika argued that the article rationalized Japan’s, and Fuchida’s, actions in war. “It is unconscionable that Stars and Stripes showed such poor judgment in not finding one of our own to write about on the most sacred day in American military history,” Soika said.

The lieutenant’s sentiment is patriotic and understandable. But rather than a condoning of the Japanese deeds, the article really was about Fuchida’s embracing of Christianity and religious preaching. (He became a friend of the Rev. Billy Graham’s.) A companion piece dealt with an American who wanted to make a movie about the Japanese convert. That’s what’s called the “news peg” for the story.

Then came a letter from a reader who was appalled by a front-page story about a U.S. Army deserter who was petitioning Germany for political asylum. “Stars and Stripes has hit an all-time low,” wrote Sgt. 1st Class Monica Meeks of Camp Virginia, Kuwait. “Since when is a deserter worthy of front-page news?” The soldier, Army Spc. Andre L. Shepherd, “is a coward and needs to grow up,” the letter said. “Soldiers in his unit who admirably performed their duties deserve the front page, not him.”

Again, an understandable point of view from someone serving in harm’s way with thousands of willing warriors. But any insinuation that editors were extolling the deserter is a leap. The justification for the story and its placement was clear: Shepherd was “the first U.S. servicemember to take that legal and political step (asking for asylum) in Germany over the war on terrorism.” The story noted there were serious implications for U.S.-German relations and the status of other deserters. I didn’t find anything in the story that extolled the deserter in any way (though I was puzzled by a passage that said “at the behest” of reporters Shepherd put on a camouflage uniform “for pictures”; reporters should leave interview subjects as they find them).

Finally, a writer from Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan, blasted Stripes for running a certain Washington Post article. It reported that a study sponsored by more than 300 U.S. mayors had found that states “with lax gun laws had higher rates of handgun killings, fatal shootings of police officers, and sales of weapons that were used in crimes in other states.” Wrote Navy Lt. James Thompson: “I just wanted to find out if you have any standards on the articles you choose to publish?”

The lieutenant’s personal stance on the gun-control debate was clear. The sponsoring group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, “is a farce,” he wrote. “It is composed entirely of far left-leaning gun control-embracing nut jobs.” The letter went on: “That the Washington Post would publish such a piece of propaganda without researching the facts or interviewing someone with a counterpoint is the lowest form of hypocrisy attempting to pawn itself off as journalism. … What is even more disgraceful is that you would continue the propaganda chain by publishing it.”

Fair enough when it comes to Thompson’s complaint about the lack of any opposing view. There was an inconsequential and fleeting reference to the anti-gun law position in a part of the story that was trimmed for reasons of space, but that’s it. However, the absence of appropriate balance in The Post’s article does not equate to a Stripes plot to push the pro-gun law argument.

Let me tell you a little secret: Even the most conscientious copy editors struggling against tight deadlines would never get their work done on time if every syndicated article, and there are dozens daily, was scrutinized for absolute perfection. Sometimes news, as in this case, has to be reported and readers will see in it what they are inclined to see.