I enjoy ploughing through i's daily email inbox, filtering out the more vituperative comments, replying where needed, but often just being overwhelmed by the kindness of our readers.
Journalists are not used to such nice comments. But, for us here at i , it's important to note that emails are not the only form by which to talk to us. Our Twitter ( @theipaper), Facebook ( facebook.com/i) and text (07786 200100 begin with 'THEI') streams are the source of much lively debate. However, the topics that get you going can be very different by medium. (Note that we can't respond to texts or letters through the post).
Via snail mail, we are still getting complaints about a column that Amol Rajan wrote the other week about the royals. At email@example.com's inbox you are focused on yesterday's feature: 60 facts about the Queen in honour of the 60th anniversary of her accession. Sadly, a gremlin saw us repeat one – and boy, did you notice. Rather than let you stew on 59, we bring you a 60th fact today.
It's interesting to see how largely pro-Royal Family our inbox is. Our mother ship, The Independent, has never exactly been the royalist paper of choice. A smidgen of that attitude can be found on Facebook.
Facebook is where we hear more from younger readers. What's got you agitated there is the hot topic of whether to teach the same classics we learnt in school, to our children.. To be clear, yesterday I was questioning the value of Sir Walter Scott, not Charles Dickens. Dickens' characters are immortal, but not all the writing of any era is. As for the inexplicable elitist jibes that the saintly J K Rowling always elicits from curmudgeonly (often older) readers, I would wager that Harry, Hermione and Ron will all be around in 100 years' time with Pip, Scrooge and Fagin. Rebecca? Not so much.Reuse content