The interesting thing about 21st-century journalism is that readers sometimes can read a story as it evolves.

And they can react to it. Sometimes strongly.

Often when we get a nugget of news, we post it on our Web site. When we get another nugget, we rewrite and post a revision. Call it incremental reporting.

A story that was a work in progress caused a stir a little more than a week ago. It provides an opportunity to explain what we do and why we do it.

The story was about an Anderson man who was killed while riding a four-wheel vehicle late one night. We learned of the tragedy early the next morning, and a reporter wrote a short story that was posted on IndependentMail.com.

People saw the story online and called with questions, comments or more information. Comments were posted at the bottom of the story. And readers began reacting to those comments. By last count, 85 comments were posted.

We learned some background. After verifying that the man who died was convicted of murder in 1988 and sentenced to life, an editor included that fact in a revision of the story.

An inside story: The reporter questioned the relevance of including that conviction in the story. This happens from time to time in any newsroom. Judgment calls are open for debate. Editors listen to reporters, but ultimately editors make the call. Sometimes they are swayed. Not this time.

In this case, after doing a little more reporting, the reporter agreed with the editor’s call. The next version of the story mentioned that the case was retried in 1994, and again a guilty verdict and life sentence was the result. But in 2005, the South Carolina Supreme Court overturned the conviction. A guilty plea to murder and a 30-year sentence resulted, and in 2006, this man was released from prison based on time served.

There’s more to this story, but we reach a point where we question how much of a rehash of old news is appropriate. In the final version of the story, seven of 15 paragraphs were background. Those were seven paragraphs too many, according to some readers. Others defended us.

I will defend our call — the 1988 murder was a high-profile case; it’s not as if we reported that this man once was charged with a misdemeanor; and we did not pass judgment — but I respect the opinions and understand the feelings of those who disagree.

When family members impressed on us how much this man had turned his life around, we did a follow-up story, but how can one write about a man turning his life around without referring to his past?

I invite you to post a comment at the bottom of this column online. Or comment on someone else’s comment.

This Web interactive feature is relatively new. What do you think?

Any comments on the fact that we welcome comments?