BILL JAMIESON, assistant editor, The Scotsman
I take letters to the editor very seriously because people have taken time to write reasoned responses, but it's hugely different with the website. You tend to get a stream of bile and invective and some of the comments are quite unpleasant. I don't tend to take website comments very seriously because a lot of it is very off the top-of-the-head bile and angst. Perhaps I should be more attentive but if a reader writes in I will always respond and if anything needs to be corrected or an apology issued then I will make sure it is done.

Melanie Reid, columnist, The Times
I rarely read the comments online about the articles. There's an argument that it is healthy to have a debate but given the sheer vitriol, I don't think it is a good thing. If people have something positive to contribute - either good or bad - they usually put pen to paper. I wrote a column about the suicide of Irene Hogg, the Borders headmistress who committed suicide in advance of a school inspection, and there was a fantastic repsonse to that from other teachers, but I do think that was a rare occurrence. Like all columnists I feel you have to be provocative, but I try and pitch it at a reasonably high level. The comments afterwards will usually dumb it down to a level that is quite embarrassing though.

Ruth Wishart, columnist and broadcaster
If the comments are hostile, I just see it as all part of life's rich tapestry. It is perfectly fair to give people their say. Journalists are given a platform to express their views and it is only right that the public have one too. If someone disagrees with what I have written, I don't think it is worthwhile getting into a protracted argument over it.

Ian Bell, columnist, Herald and Sunday Herald
Do I pay attention to public comments? Truthfully, I don't especially. The risk is that you wind up with the sense of a crowd looking over your shoulder, or that you become captive, if only emotionally, to correspondents. If someone raises a matter of fact, and can show that I might be dead wrong, then I pay attention.

Journalists have no particular right to be annoyed by what people write. I can be irritated, though, by people who miss the point through misreading, innocent or otherwise. Praise, meanwhile, is poison for columnists. They get paid. And their egos are quite big enough to begin with.

In principle, the ability for people to respond to articles online is positive. In practice, I despise those who shelter behind anonymity, hunt in packs, or produce the equivalent of poison pen letters. The web has given new life, too, to the old, organised write-in campaign. Sweetly (or not), they think we don't notice, yet certain groups - I'm thinking of political parties - imagine it's all dashed clever. My fear is that they alienate ordinary, non-aligned, merely interested readers.

Fraser Nelson, political editor, The Spectator
The great thing about the comments is that they are a really honest appraisal. When I have been given a kicking I have usually deserved it.

You do get downhearted sometimes, but it is better that way because you know what you have written is not up to standard.

We never used to have anyone but Private Eye breathing down our necks but now we have a whole army of bloggers who do it, and all power to them. You have to be on your toes.

Reader feedback is the best single thing about the internet in that it democratises comment. It used to be the media elite who controlled what comment was, but with the internet, everyone can have a view.

There are some journalists who think "Who the hell are these guys?!", but I take almost every single comment seriously. By and large, if someone has taken the time to read an article, then they have a right to comment on it.

Iain Macwhirter, political commentator, The Herald and Sunday Herald
I feel uncomfortable reading responses because I am increasingly aware that comments are being conducted by a small number of people.

It can be either very hostile or very approving but I don't know how representative it is. People are perfectly right to make comments, off the top of their head or not. I do look at them but they often tend to be very samey. I often used to find that there would be quite considered responses from people who would engage in the issues, but that doesn't seem to be the case as much anymore.

I hate the anonymous thing. That turns me off. It is difficult to take them seriously when they don't even give their real names - why should I bother with that? If we, the journalists, are writing under our own name, then why shouldn't they?

The vast majority are just ejaculation. A lot of them are quite witty and pointed but there aren't many that make me think any more.

Brian Taylor, political editor, BBC Scotland
I make a point of reading the responses posted on my blog as soon as possible. The BBC is keen on advancing the notion of interactivity. Consequently, it is important to pay attention when we get responses to our published content. It can occasionally be irksome to read criticism: particularly if, as sometimes happens, the comments are based upon a misreading.

It is not up to me to attempt to dictate the course of the discussion. In any case, given the decidedly lively nature of my respondents, such attempted dictation wouldn't work for a second.

Quite frequently, the discussion moves way beyond the original post - with respondents arguing with each other. I particularly approve of that - provided it is done, as it almost always is, with humour and mutual respect.

From memory, I have only intervened twice. Once, when a respondent painted a completely inaccurate picture of a broadcast I had done. I felt I could not let that stand.

The second occasion was much more serious. A respondent commented, negatively, upon my braces. My galluses are seminal. I will not have them traduced.

Lesley Riddoch, broadcaster
I think it is better out than in, but I tend to get find people are more prepared to come up to me in the street. There's maybe something about the comment button that cripples peoples' response, and they have formed an opinion that journalists are on send and not receive.

I will always try my best to reply to people who contact me. As they can get incredibly angry it usually astonishes them that anyone should get back to them.