Although the Readers' Representative's office has been here for 11 years, the response to the first column in this series last month suggested that not all readers were aware of its existence.
This is despite the fact that a note about us is added to the end of the Corrections and Clarifications column - which appears far more often than we would like.
It was gratifying to hear from those who regard this newspaper with fondness, but inevitably these were outnumbered by readers who were angry about some aspect of our coverage.
The topic that preoccupied complainants in the past month was the Government reception for Cardinal Connell. Some who called just wanted to voice their opposition to Celia Larkin's name on the invitation, but most were cross with how we handled the statement on the matter from the Minister of State, Liz O'Donnell.
"The story shouldn't have been on the front page," they said. "You just can't resist sensationalising criticism of the Catholic Church".
I discussed this with senior editorial staff, and they are unrepentant. Their view, and I have to say this office agrees with it, is that it is indeed front-page news when a member of the Government criticises the majority church which historically has played such a central role in the affairs of the State.
Other readers were annoyed with the newspaper's editorial on the matter. They phoned to castigate the editor for taking the view that, whatever about the rights and wrongs of the situation, the Taoiseach was not a hypocrite.
Of course, it is everyone's right to disagree with an opinion, but in disagreeing one is also expressing an opinion, a fact that some readers, in the grip of very strong feelings, are inclined to overlook. One caller told me that we had no right to hold this opinion because it was wrong, and he demanded a correction. We are always pleased to hear from readers who want to point out an error of fact, and if they're right, it will be corrected.
But a correction to an opinion? The Irish Times welcomes all shades of opinion, particularly those that diverge from its own, but the platform is the Letters page, not the Corrections column.
However, space is limited. The Letters editor's mantra is: "The aim of the Letters page is to present as many views as possible so the more short letters that are received, the more opinions that can be aired. So, the shorter the letter, the more chance it has of being published".
And please don't think that because you cram everything on to one page using a tiny typeface and no margins that the long-suffering man will be fooled into thinking it's a short letter.
Another of your concerns recently has been the photographs of animals killed, or about to be killed, in the foot-and-mouth emergency. The calls echoed those we receive whenever we publish pictures of violence, tragedies or atrocities. Some readers object to their use on the front page, because children might be distressed, but feel the same photograph would be acceptable on an inside page.
Others object to the publication of disturbing photographs anywhere in the newspaper.
One caller said: "If you do your job properly in describing a scene, I can imagine it; I don't have to see a picture of it". That reader doesn't believe in the adage that a picture paints a thousand words.
Regular comments after the publication of such photographs include: "You published it just to sell newspapers" and "You're no better than the tabloids".
We fully accept that readers might be disturbed by the publication of certain photographs, but the intention is neither to sensationalise gratuitously nor to shock people in order to increase sales of the newspaper. (I suspect, in fact, that disturbing photographs may have the opposite effect.)
It seems obvious to say it, but the primary function of newspapers, the reason they exist at all, is to tell their readers the news - and pictures are a crucial part of that telling.
It is impossible to illustrate unpleasant reality without showing unpleasantness, but great care is taken in choosing illustrations.
Only after discussion between the picture editor, the night editor, the chief sub-editor and other senior staff is the final choice made. Indeed, the pictures that are published are often not the most graphic available to us.
A caller recently described one photograph as "distasteful". And that is what it comes down to - taste. We accept that some readers will not agree with ours, and indeed occasionally in hindsight we are less than happy ourselves with pictures we have used, but we hope readers will accept that the choices made are not based on any sense of prurience.
The primary objective is to show reality, no matter how unpalatable it may be.
I often think of the famous photograph by Nick Ut of Kim Phuc, the badly burned Vietnamese girl fleeing naked from the napalm bombing of her village. Most would agree this was a truly distressing image, but few would argue that its publication played no part in forming opinion on the tragedy of the Vietnam war, or indeed on all wars.
Readers may contact the Readers' Representative's Office by e-mail readersrep@irish-times.ie or by telephone (01) 675 8000 from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday to Friday. Outside these times, they may contact the Duty Editor