Recently, the Washington Post and New York Times made it easier for readers to contact reporters directly via email. I wanted to know if there was any downside to this. Of course, in theory, not really. But those of us who've received the uncommonly nasty piece of hate mail wouldn't necessarily jump at the chance to receive more of it.

One reader noted that the access readers have can make writers a little more nervous when writing controversial stuff. "I think it shows courage when someone writes something they know will make people mad when they know they'll get a lot of e-mails." They would know of course what it's like to court angry people: "When I was working at a newspaper, one woman said she hoped I got eaten by wolves." Of course I could commiserate, since one guy hated my review of the U2 2002 Super Bowl Halftime Show so much that he told me he wished we lived in a Communist country so my writing could be suppressed so nobody would have to hear my thoughts why the show sucked.

There's a reason why writers can get more nasty emails than nasty letters: It's easier and faster to write a hateful email than it is to write a hateful letter, stamp it, and put it in the mail. One person noted, "The fact is many readers who won't write a letter or call will email, so it can substantially change things."

Of course, some of us have led more blessed careers so far: "I enjoy getting feedback from readers. I don't get a lot of emails, but most of them are positive. It reminds me that real people are reading my work rather than it just going into oblivion. I've had people take issue with what I have written, and that is fine. I try to explain why I made the comments I did, but it doesn't get to me. I do think that it is good to hear someone else's perspective sometimes. Luckily I haven't had any of the ''eaten by wolves'' emails so far!"

The person who was threatened with being eaten by wolves also raised the point that it's good for writers who are readers to be in touch with those whose work they admire: "Sometimes if I really love a story, I'll send a short note telling the person I enjoyed their work." At the very least, doing so can make another writer feel good and spread karmic good. And who knows, you might make a friend in a good place doing so (but don't write in for that reason.)

Another said that keeping readers in touch with the writers might make writers feel more responsible for their subject matter. "I think the worth all depends on what is done with the feedback. Granted, not every single email can and should be responded to, but will there even be an attempt, and will justified dissatisfaction with an opinion a reporter espouses, or the way in which a reporter handles a particular topic be seriously considered? For instance, I found myself enraged by a recent article in the New York Times (''Street Lit With Publishing Cred: From Prison to a Four-Book Deal'' by Corey Kilgannon) about street lit, complete with a photo of the ex-con turned author's photo selling his book on a charter bus of family and friends of current inmates heading upstate for a visit. While I certainly think there's room for everything, where are the articles talking about literary fiction or serious nonfiction in the African American market, and this article is a recycled article on a subject the Times keeps writing about--street literature, as if this is all African Americans read or should be reading--which is the real message. I tried to google the guy who wrote it, but didn't come up with any contact info to write in to him. Now that this new system is being instituted, I wonder how emails like mine would be received--basically calling irresponsible reporters to the carpet."