How dare we?! That was typical of the angry responses that came flying back after InformationWeek published our assessment of the sometimes murky relationships that exist between IT research firms and the technology companies they cover in the Feb. 6 cover story, "Credibility Of Analysts."

How dare InformationWeek suggest that business dealings might influence analyst reports? How dare we put Gartner CEO Gene Hall's photo on the cover with such a provocative ("Can You Trust This Man?") headline? How dare InformationWeek point fingers when a major source of our own revenue comes from the tech industry? Oh and by the way, the story, by editors at large Larry Greenemeier and Paul McDougall (and edited by me), didn't turn up anything new anyway.

When tech media meets tech research, analysis is a two-way street, and now it's time to hear what the subjects of our story thought about InformationWeek's report on them. We've received phone calls, letters, E-mail, and blog responses from PR people, analysts, tech companies, and IT professionals—some praising us for our moxy, others hammering us for our execution.

"Very even handed," wrote one analyst with a major firm, who shoots to the top of my list of the most objective and knowledgeable analysts out there.

Others were less impressed. Analyst Mike Rothman refers to our story as being mostly irrelevant on his blog. But Rothman also had this to say: "If you are going to go on a witch hunt, you better find some witches. They are out there…"

Nancy Erskine of Gartner's Office of the Ombudsman offers a measured response in a blog posting titled, "Credibility Of Analysts: Gartner Put To The Test." Erskine tried to set the record straight in a number of areas where she felt InformationWeek gave readers the wrong impression. Gartner does not, she writes, create reports that are funded by tech vendors. (InformationWeek didn't say that Gartner did engage in that practice, but we did say it's not unusual for research firms in general to do so. She's right to make the clarification.) Erskine also points out that Gartner no longer has a stake in the SI Venture Fund II hedge fund, which invests in technology companies. That was our mistake. But it doesn't change the fact that Gartner did once have an investment in SI Ventures at the same time that SI Ventures had an investment in tech company Authentor and that, during that same period, Gartner was quoted in press releases issued by Authentor.

Surprisingly, Erskine says nothing about the headline that appeared on the cover of InformationWeek alongside Gartner CEO Gene Hall's picture: "Can You Trust This Man?" It's tough language, to be sure, but a legitimate rhetorical question to be asked of the top executive of the largest IT research firm. Thousands of Gartner customers might give a resounding "yes" to that question, but there may be others who are not so sure.

One criticism of our story is that it didn't cover new ground. The article "is rather bland and rehashes old issues," writes Carter Lusher, director of corporate analyst relations for Hewlett-Packard, on Gartner's blog. Lusher's correct about one thing: Questions over IT research business practices aren't new. But in our view that doesn't make them any less deserving of investigation, and we unearthed plenty of fresh examples. InformationWeek readers spend millions of dollars on IT research and deserve to know what they're getting in return. I find it notable that Lusher responded to Gartner and not to InformationWeek. It seems to reinforce the perception that tech vendors are quite comfortable relating to IT researchers.

Notice I said "perception." That was a key point in InformationWeek's story, but one that some overlooked. We write about "the appearance of a conflict of interest" when vendors like Stampede spend money with Gartner and later show up in Gartner's Magic Quadrant. We didn't accuse Stampede or Gartner of doing anything unethical, only pointed out that some sort of business relationship existed between the companies. (And, in fact, we got the Stampede-Gartner relationship partly wrong. Stampede was not a Gartner research client prior to appearing in the Magic Quadrant, as reported, but it did pay to exhibit at a Gartner conference. The mistake, however, wasn't our fault—Stampede told InformationWeek that it had been a Gartner client, then retracted that statement after our story was published. InformationWeek will publish a letter of response from Stampede in an upcoming issue of the magazine.)

There's more reaction to our article on the ARmadgeddon blog by IT analyst relations professionals. ARmadgeddon refers to our story as being "rather soft." Others felt our story was properly balanced. "It is refreshing (and much too rare) to finally find an article on this subject," writes reader Doug Huddle.

Several people questioned just how well InformationWeek's own separation of editorial and sales would hold up to scrutiny. We expected those kinds of questions--we've heard them before. What I can say is that in the 10 years I've been with InformationWeek, I've never once been asked to write or edit a story that reflects favorably on a particular product or company, nor have I been asked to temper our criticism of any product or company. Nor have I asked any of our reporters to do so or heard of such requests from any other quarters within our company. As we reported in our story, any vendor-sponsored content that runs in InformationWeek is handled outside of our editorial department, generated by non-staffers, and clearly marked.

One important point: This isn't personal. InformationWeek editors have nothing against IT researchers and analysts, including Gartner CEO Hall, who must have cringed when he saw our cover. There are many among them whom we respect and interact with regularly, and we will continue to seek out those we trust for their expertise and insights. It's the gray areas of their business that we're asking about.

What do you think about the credibility of IT analysts, or the way we covered the subject? Leave a comment and let us know.