M y boss has a sign in her office that’s served her well over the years: “Check your assumptions.”

This column is about checking your assumptions and what we could call an expectations gap — and how one reader’s experience can serve as a reminder for both the public and journalists. The issue involved may seem relatively minor, but it points to a deeper issue.

The story begins with reader Laurie Johnson, who responded to an e-mail from Ken Sands. He is the managing editor of online and new media for the paper and he asked her, along with other readers, for feedback on the paper. She sent him a suggestion that the paper consider dropping the gay-oriented column in the new weekly, 7, an entertainment supplement. “I wasn’t sending it for publication,” she says. Yet to her surprise, the comment appeared in the “Ask the Editors” section of the paper on June 5.

Not only did something she thought was a private communication show up unexpectedly in print, she thinks that Editor Steve Smith’s comments missed the main point of her concern (more on that in the next column).

The wording that got Johnson to respond in the first place was clear and simple, inviting a question or feedback generally. But it didn’t say anything explicitly about “what you say may be used in print.” Should it have?

Journalists work on the assumption that all information they’re gathering or anything they learn about is potentially publishable. An exception comes with high level government reporting, when reporters may be given information that is “off the record” (you can’t use it), or “not for attribution” (you can use it but don’t put my name with it).

But that doesn’t happen often with stories generated by The Spokesman-Review staff. Virtually all the material they may come across is “eligible for publication,” and the paper’s reporters — like reporters everywhere — are always on duty, always attuned to a possible story.

Sands’ assumption when he got Johnson’s response was naturally that her suggestion was fair game for publication. Given the context within which he works, that was a reasonable response. Moreover, Sands says he’s sent out hundreds of similar e-mails over the past seven years asking for reader feedback. Almost always it’s clear to readers that their answers may be quoted. He can think of only three times when readers were taken by surprise.

Still, he adds, “that’s three too many.” In Johnson’s case, he agrees that the wording didn’t explicitly say her response might appear in print. He’s concerned that the wording wasn’t clear enough to her. “If she was confused, then this wasn’t explicit enough.” He adds, “We’re not trying to con someone into saying something; it’s clearly not in our interests to do that.”

He’s right, and Johnson, in turn, agrees that in looking again at the wording, she now understands why Sands would have assumed it was for publication.

A two-fold point emerges from this experience. The first is that members of the public need to remember that reporters and editors almost always work with the mindset that anything they hear could lead to a story. If you’re chatting casually to a reporter at your daughter’s softball game and tell him about illegal goings-on in your workplace, that reporter may well follow up — either directly or by steering this lead to a colleague who reports on this area.

Reporters always have their antennae out in their quest for a story. That’s what they’re supposed to do. For those of us who aren’t journalists, the lesson is simple: Any time you’re talking to a reporter, be aware what the reporter’s assumptions are. He or she is always, always, always on duty. And if a reporter contacts you about a story, it’s not for an idle chat: it’s for information to use in a story.

Journalists, for their part, need to be sensitive to the fact that not everyone is aware of a reporter’s frame of reference. It’s one thing to be dealing with a public figure such as Mayor Jim West, or someone else who’s used to interacting with reporters. These individuals know that if you don’t want it in the paper (or on TV), then don’t say it.

However, journalists cannot and should not expect ordinary Mary Q. Public to be as media savvy. Journalists take on a special obligation when dealing with Mary and people like her to let them know at the very least this rule of the game: “I’m a reporter for The Spokesman-Review and I’d like to ask you a few questions about such and such.” At that point, we would do well to follow the advice of CBS-TV news anchor Dan Rather, who says: “In dealing with the press, do yourself a favor; stick with one of three responses: I know and I can tell you; I know and I can’t tell you; I don’t know.”

Should Laurie Johnson have expected her response to appear in print? Probably, yes. And should Sands’ initial request have spelled out the ground rules more fully? Probably not. But it never hurts to err on the side of clarity, and I suggest he add a line that says something like: “Your response may be used in our ‘Ask the Editors’ column, unless you tell us not to.”

Space is up. Next time we’ll look at Steve Smith’s response to Laurie’s suggestion, and some related issues.