Email Anxiety, the Search for a Cure

Several Guardian journalists seem to be developing what might be called email anxiety, under the increasing burden of their electronic correspondence. One of the paper's regular columnists said, "It troubles me that many people are sending me thoughtful emails which I get round to replying to late [or] not at all."

A correspondent said, "I am now drowning in emails and can't keep my inbox clear, to the point where it is a real problem. I have to let lots of emails go, which I feel is rude, particularly since readers have bothered to respond." Another told me, "There is absolutely no way you can reply to every email ... [and] that leaves people feeling quite let down." One went a step further, "Worst of all worlds is printing an address, suggesting the possibility of an exchange, then ignoring the mail."

Readers may be more reasonable in this than some journalists suppose them to be. One reader, taking up an invitation at the end of my column last week, wrote to say, "Readers should not expect replies to their comments. The purpose of the feedback is to supply the columnist with appraisal, corrections and, occasionally, enlightenment ... Email feedback is of enormous benefit to the modern communicator."

Most of the Guardian journalists who made their views known to me, seem to agree, at least in part, with that last statement. Only one, in fact, categorically rejected the idea of any discourse with the reader, telling me, "I would not welcome my email address at the bottom of anything I write. I just don't regard my work as an invitation to dialogue."

Guardian policy is to foster an open, reasonable and responsive relationship between writer and reader. Publication of email addresses is encouraged but remains voluntary. Most journalists welcome the accessibility and accountability that comes with it, at least in principle.

One said, "It does seem to me to be a basically positive thing [to give] the reader a direct link with the writer. That's useful to the writer, but also, hopefully, more transparent and demystifying to the reader." Another said, "As journalists we should not discourage reader participation, even if it proves on occasion to be a pain."

An editor on the website said, "I encourage writers to include their email addresses at the end of articles. Part of what makes the Guardian special is that readers have a stake in it, and having a direct line of communication with writers is part of this. The internet at its best is about interactivity ...

"My experience is that many writers enjoy hearing their readers' comments, and are often astonished at how quickly they receive email after the article is published."

Indeed, one advantage felt by journalists was the graphic way in which email response to the publication of their stories on the website brought home to them the global reach of the online Guardian. It shifted perspective.

Another, practical, advantage noted by many was the flow of information, ideas and contacts they gained from their "real" correspondence, as opposed to the lobbies, the abuse and the spam. A freelance journalist who wrote recently on the comment pages emailed the commissioning editor to say she had been delighted with the feedback - about 25 emails, bringing more information, some new contacts, three offers to write for other newspapers, and a note from an old schoolfriend with whom she had long lost touch.

One possible problem is the effect of this direct reader-to-writer correspondence on the health of the letters page of the Guardian, the paper's main public forum. There is no sign of any quantitative decline. The page is still greatly oversubscribed, with an average - outside periods of major international crisis - of about 300 letters a day. However, there have been more than a few occasions now when the correspondence reaching the letters desk after the publication of a controversial column has been outweighed by the correspondence going direct to the writer. Readers should consider direct correspondence with writers as an additional course open to them, and not simply an alternative.

I shall pass on to the Guardian's IT department all the suggestions from readers for lightening the load on journalists, and I thank readers and writers for letting me have their views. Many readers hoped that the present easy access would continue despite all the difficulties. One suggested that a Guardian campaign to bring in strong laws against spam and spammers would be a contribution to civilised life.