The media, in general, and The Advertiser, in particular, are easy targets when it comes to criticism, and that's OK most times. We're the state's largest media organization, so we generally let readers take their shots. After all, we're the ones who buy ink by the barrel, as the saying goes.

But an Island Voices column on Sept. 28 by Dawn Morais Webster deserves some rebuttal and disclosure.

Webster was clearly disappointed with the outcome of the 2nd Congressional District race, which she blamed on a number of factors: voter apathy, name recognition, the party establishment, even the lack of transportation for seniors to attend candidate debates. But she reserved the bulk of her blame for the media for not providing thorough coverage of the issues.

Although Webster didn't mention The Advertiser by name, we are the biggest game in town and so I have to give her comments thoughtful consideration.

She also identified herself at the end of the column as being a member of the Honolulu Community Media Council, an organization which bills itself as a nonpartisan, nonprofit group whose mission, among other things, is to promote accurate and fair information and promote greater understanding of media issues.

I can't speak for what other members of the media did with the 2nd Congressional District races, but The Advertiser ran more than 40 stories or columns focusing on the race, from Ed Case's January announcement that he would vacate the seat to challenge U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, until the primary vote on Sept. 23.

Not only did we cover the normal daily news readers expect, but we ran lengthy profiles on each of the 12 candidates, issues pieces with the candidates on a range of national and local issues, updates on campaign contributions, overview stories and columns that attempted to put the race in perspective and help readers decide whom to choose.

We ran a 44-page voters' guide with an overview of the race and individual profiles of each candidate. We ran four in-depth graphics (placed in a special location on our Web site) that showed how the candidates stood on the issues of Hawaiian recognition, transportation, the war in Iraq and the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind law. We even tossed in a softball: What do you think is the most important issue facing the 2nd Congressional District?

We covered a "speed-dating" political event, which allowed voters to talk to the candidates in an informal group setting. We covered the two-hour live broadcast sponsored by Hawaii Public Radio. We even co-sponsored the 2nd Congressional televised debate. Nobody devoted more column inches, photos, graphics or Web space to this race.

But Webster is not only a member of the Media Council. She is president, CEO and executive creative director of Loomis-ISC, which worked heavily on the campaign of Gary Hooser. Webster said so when she e-mailed us her text, but in her commentary to readers she chose to describe herself first and foremost as a member of the Media Council and never alluded to her work on the Hooser campaign. We should have made the connection but did not.

Instead, she mentioned various issues that the media should have covered, such as the fact that only one candidate was from the Neighbor Islands, only a couple of candidates went on record opposing the war before it started and only two opposed increasing the state's eavesdropping rights. Without saying so, she was talking about Hooser. But a careful review of our stories would have shown that all of what she described was covered extensively in The Advertiser.

"If there was a failure to differentiate, the media and the pundits they relied on must share some responsibility for an inexplicable reluctance to look beyond the immediate horizon from their perches in Honolulu," Webster wrote.

As I said, it's easy to blame the media and maybe I'm coming off a bit thin-skinned. By all means, take us to task when we're wrong. But I'm proud of the depth of our coverage and I'm proud of the reporters and editors who spent so much time getting it right.