It surprises some readers to know that the same reporter who broke the story about Mrs. Clinton’s private email server when she was secretary of state also broke the big stories last year about why Mr. Trump fired James Comey and the president’s efforts to shut down the federal investigation into Michael Flynn.

Our approach may strike some as old-fashioned. But we believe it’s the most important role the news media can play in supporting a healthy democratic society.

I’m always sorry when readers feel let down by our coverage. We work hard every day to earn your trust. We have devoted tremendous reporting resources since the election to examining every part of this political moment — the anger, the divisions, the rise of both anti- and pro-Trump activism.

These are crucial stories for us and, we think, for the country. And I think if you began reading The Times again, you would find that coverage deep and insightful and informative. I very much hope you’ll return as a subscriber in the future.

_____

As a longtime subscriber, my faith in The Times was deeply shaken when the Hillary numbers we saw every day leading up to the election turned out to be so incredibly off the mark. It was 82/18, 84/16; Hillary was going to dominate. After Trump won I kept asking myself how my dear New York Times could have gotten it so wrong.

What kinds of things will you do in the future to improve the accuracy of these types of polls?

— Andy F., in Vietnam

Because I’m not a polling expert, I asked Amanda Cox, who as the editor of The Upshot oversees much of this coverage, for her insight. She responded to your question about how something with 16 percent odds — in this case Mr. Trump winning the presidency — could have happened:

Sixteen percent is like rolling a die and looking for a three to come up. If it happened, you might feel surprised — chances were against you — but you wouldn’t feel like the entire system was broken. But I also understand that lots of our readers do feel let down, and that saying it was probability, not prophecy, doesn’t help them … I still believe that “What do all these polls mean?” is basically a noble question, and that models are a rigorous and disciplined way to think about it.

I personally think polls can provide useful information and insight. But regardless of where you come down on that issue, I can assure you that our editors are actively examining the lessons from the last election and are committed to using those insights to update our approach.