O ur newsroom staffers had a tough assignment last week. We had to keep our mouths shut and listen to 17 loyal and thoughtful Spokesman-Review readers, who had plenty to say about how we do our jobs.

We brought in two respected newspaper industry trainers, Steve Buttry of the American Press Institute in Reston, Va., and Aly Colon of the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Fla., to conduct two days of staff training. The training sessions focused on accuracy, ethics, the use of confidential sources and bias.

The training culminated with a 90-minute reader panel moderated by one of the trainers. We recruited volunteer readers who agreed to talk to us about our ethics and how they perceive our work. The format was simple: they talk, we listen. We weren’t allowed to challenge or dispute whatever they said.

Here are some highlights of what our readers had to say:

“Modesty and humility are important characteristics for a good newspaper. Newspapers should use modesty in their judgment about what they really know.

“There’s a reward for getting the story first, but there is a greater reward for getting it right.

“We don’t really want the paper to be warm and fuzzy.

“The newspaper should report the truth as it knows it at any given point in time.

“The newspaper needs to be fair.

“Stories for three weeks about Britney Spears’ baby on the front seat of her car? “Give me a break,” said one reader.

“The Spokesman-Review has a “go for the jugular” approach in the coverage of local government.

“We can’t get in-depth local news anywhere else. We count on you to provide that.

“The Spokesman-Review and media in general portray conservatives as bumbling, homophobic bigots.

While our faithful readers had many pointed comments about us, they offered plenty of constructive criticism and even some gratifying compliments. My favorite was the reader who said “I salute you all as ‘my’ reporters.” Her comment echoed some others from readers who thanked us for aggressively covering Otto Zehm’s death. Another reader, however, said the police were “vilified” in our coverage of the Zehm case.

The compliments were certainly welcome, but the real meat of the discussion was the focus on how we should be fairer, more authoritative and more accurate.

Various comments from the readers highlighted the fact that well-intentioned people can view the same issue in quite opposite ways. The panel’s comments about the Zehm case and our coverage of the late Jim West illustrated how dramatically different readers viewed our coverage and our intentions.

Of course, no reader discussion about The Spokesman-Review and its news coverage would be complete without reference to the River Park Square garage. Several of the readers noted that the newsroom is in a no-win situation in trying to cover the newspaper owners and their involvement in the development of downtown.

The readers who served on our panel are the kind of customers every newspaper wants. Most of the panelists are committed newspaper readers whose daily routine begins with a thorough read of the paper.

The youngest reader on the panel was 44, so we weren’t able to hear the views of those in the 18 to 40 age group. Unfortunately, the reader panel was not racially diverse, either, so we missed the opportunity to hear from a broader base of the community.

Some of our staffers were disappointed that they weren’t allowed to talk to the readers and engage in a serious two-way conversation. Rest assured, though, that the training sessions aren’t the only time we encounter readers. We respond daily to their phone calls and we communicate regularly via e-mail.

Listening to the heartfelt criticisms from the reader panel wasn’t always easy, but it was necessary. Our readers reminded us of our important role in the community and they inspired us to remain focused on the things that matter.