The News & Observer's front page became an inbox last week for sensational stories about e-mail.

First, the newspaper reported Tuesday about its own suit against Gov. Mike Easley over his office's handling of state government e-mail. Then, there was the story Thursday about a love-addled lawyer allegedly breaking into the office e-mail account of her ex-boyfriend, a high-level Wake County official.

In an increasingly online society, e-mail is our main avenue of communication, and it's inevitable that it becomes yeasty matter for news. Readers took notice of and wondered about both stories.

Let's discuss the ex-lovers' cyber-spat first. This was a juicier story. The paper reported that Raleigh lawyer Christina Medlin tapped into the e-mail account of her former boyfriend, Deputy County Manager Joseph K. Durham, more than 1,400 times over four months. Her lawyer said she was searching for e-mail from other women.

The story laid out in some detail that the two had lived together after Durham legally separated from his wife but before they were divorced, and that Medlin and Durham had broken up.

Readers had two questions: Did we need this level of detail about their personal relationship and why was this tawdry tale about "cyberstalking" on the front page?

"To me, it was a tacky, no-harm/no-foul kind of story. Yes, she was wrong, and, yes, being able to hack into a county government's e-mail account needs looking into by the county government, but it really didn't need to be printed on the front page ... if at all," wrote Delores Hamilton of Cary.

I agree. The story was news because of the questions it raises about the security of the county government computer system and the county official who oversees computer security. But I thought it was a small-bore issue that found its way to the front page more on salaciousness than real consequence. E-mail is how we spy on each other these days, rather than hiring private eyes. As reader Mark Turner said, "I would think our justice system has far bigger fish to fry. Let's take a deep breath, give Ms. Medlin some community service, and move on."

l l l

THE CASE OF THE GOVERNOR'S E-MAIL IS OF REAL CONSEQUENCE. The N&O and nine other news organizations filed suit Monday after reports that Easley's office directed state government information officers to delete their e-mail to and from the governor's office each day. The media plaintiffs want that stopped.

The suit also seeks changes in the governor's policy that leaves it up to state employees whether to delete their electronic correspondence. E-mails are public records just like any other government document, the news organizations contend, and should be preserved for public scrutiny.

Some readers wondered why it's a big deal. E-mail is so huge in volume -- and often so insignificant in content -- that it's unreasonable to ask employees to save all their "junk e-mail," as one reader put it.

"I think you've started rabble-rousing a bit there," Herb Wakeford, a member of the N&O's Community Panel, said last week. Wakeford noted that The N&O's coverage accused the governor of breaking the public records law but never reported exactly what the law says. "It comes across as pretty harsh to me," he said. "If you're going to accuse a high official of a crime, you need to say what the law is. Otherwise, you're being unfair."

Wakeford had a good point, as N&O editors were quick to agree. The paper should report soon (if it hasn't already by the time you see this) the relevant passages of the state public records law as applies to e-mail.

The problem Wakeford raises is about the reporting, but the underlying issue is important. Why does the public need access to all the governor's e-mail? Because e-mail to a great extent has replaced memos, letters and file correspondence as the record of decision-making in government.

Reporter Dan Kane points out that for his stories about corruption surrounding former House Speaker Jim Black, who is now in prison, much of the essential information came from e-mail records. "None of this would have been known if we hadn't asked for those e-mails" from Black's office, he said.

Debbie Crane, a former state government public information officer, told us last week that state officials are even going to their private e-mail accounts to escape public scrutiny. The newspaper is acting in the public's interest in insisting that the work of government remain in the public eye.

Your opinion

Last week, I invited you to weigh in on issues of online credibility in journalism. Should newspaper Web sites allow reporters to voice their opinions in online forums (as some readers suggest)? Should they allow anonymous comments to online stories and blogs? Should they provide links from online stories to related advertising?

Here are some of your comments:

"No to each of the questions. I do not think N&O reporters should air their views on the news, on the Internet. I do not think we should continue to allow anonymous posting, and I think stories linked to advertising is a bad policy to develop. The newspaper is something that people depend upon and expect to have some reasonable level of objectivity." -- ELIZABETH LYON, Chapel Hill

"By all means, let an online commenter be anonymous to the readership, so long as The N&O has enough information to identify each commenter and take corrective action when needed (on multiple accounts, for example)." -- KEITH ROBERTSON, Raleigh

"The public does not enjoy the same protection that news people do, i.e., we might inadvertently say something momentarily stupid that we do not have a lawyer ready to defend us against. This would inhibit some really good discourse, since a lot of people, say for instance, public people such as teachers, those close to government officials, etc., wouldn't comment if they had to use their own names." -- KRIS CHRISTENSEN, Raleigh