Are the headlines fair? Is the scrutiny of her experience objective? Is the personal stuff about her family legitimate news?

"It's a hit piece, and you know it," Jim Blackburn of Raleigh said of a front-page story Wednesday investigating Palin's political career in Alaska. "Here this woman has been brought to public attention. They're hitting her left and right. I think it's so inappropriate for you to be bashing a Republican vice presidential candidate."

"You did not explain her success and the overwhelming approval with the citizens of Alaska," wrote Ronald Hill of Apex. "Who knows best? You fear Ms. Palin, and you are smearing her."

Some readers, I suspect, are commingling The N&O's coverage with that of the national media on television and in print. It has been, as National Public Radio media reporter David Folkenflik wrote last week, "a full-fledged feeding frenzy."

l l l

LET'S LOOK AT THE N&O'S NEWS COVERAGE. There was a front-page story on the Saturday after her surprise selection, but no stories about Palin on the front page Sunday or Monday. (I do agree with readers who found that Saturday headline, "McCain's VP choice is a shock," to be opinionated. "Stunning," perhaps, is less pejorative.)

The N&O did report the daughter's pregnancy on the front page Tuesday, but only as a fourth-paragraph mention in a general story about the Republican convention. Details were reported in a sidebar on Page 10A.

A story from The New York Times on Wednesday's front page explored in detail Palin's record as mayor and governor. That's more than fair game; the press would be shirking its responsibility if it didn't put under a microscope the record of a surprise candidate with a short resume.

Palin's speech to the convention was the lead story in Thursday's paper, as it should have been, and the story and accompanying picture conveyed the reality that the speech was a huge hit with conventioneers. Some objected to the headline, "Palin paints herself as a hard-hitting outsider," but it was true.

There also was a front-page story Thursday examining the issue of abstinence and sex education in North Carolina, pegged to the disclosures about Palin's daughter. News columnists Ruth Sheehan and Barry Saunders wrote about questions raised by Bristol Palin's pregnancy in their columns Wednesday and Thursday.

I think The N&O's news coverage of McCain's surprising choice for a vice presidential candidate, including the follow-up stories about his vetting process and her public record, has been appropriate. So are questions about the ethics investigation into Palin's pressuring a state official to fire the ex-husband of Palin's sister.

But I'm queasy about the attention to the Palin family personal life. It's not relevant, for instance, that her husband had a drunken-driving arrest 20 years ago, as the paper reported.

l l l

IS THE COVERAGE OF THE DAUGHTER'S PREGNANCY JUSTIFIED? Yes, says columnist Sheehan. As an outspoken advocate of abstinence-based sex education in schools, Palin invites comparison between her words and her own family's experience. I'd agree with that, but I think there's a limit, and that has to do with sensitivity to the damage being done to a teenager by incessant media coverage.

Lois Boynton, who teaches media ethics at UNC, says a politician opens herself to scrutiny of her personal life, including family, by putting herself into the public eye. But she added, "How much do we have to rehash it? This has stayed above the fold for many days. How long does it remain that significant as part of this aspect of the discussion?" (She was referring to the media in general, not The N&O.)

A story in The N&O on Thursday made the case that if a politician hauls her children onstage as campaign props, it's hypocritical to claim privacy when the details are less positive. I don't buy that; all politicians frame themselves in a family portrait. Voters want to know about the family, but there's a limit to how much we need to know.

I read last week that the editor of the Anchorage Daily News -- sister paper to The News & Observer under McClatchy Newspapers ownership -- said his reporters had heard rumors for months about the pregnancy. "We did not think it was news we were inclined to pursue. I don't see that it had much relevance to her tenure as governor," Pat Dougherty said.

He added that his paper had no choice but to report it after the story became national news. Ditto for The N&O. But I agree with Howard Weaver, a former Anchorage editor who now is McClatchy's vice president for news. In a blog, Weaver said he worries that the focus on the personal will distract the press -- and the public -- from the bigger issues that should help voters make decisions:

"Nobody will ask -- or maybe even get a chance to ask -- what she would do about the economy if she inherited the desk in the Oval Office. She won't get quizzed about NATO's role in the post-Soviet world. She won't get questioned about why she never bothered to visit most of the states she's campaigning in, much less any of the rest of the world. That will be a huge loss for American voters."

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.