Tim is right to raise these points. In fact I've talked about "DC insiderism" with him and here on the list in the past. But Tim's conclusions are way off-target. Just because you have access to information doesn't mean you've been co-opted. For instance, contrary to what Tim says, I've never "promised to spin the story in a certain way." That's the job of a PR flack, not a journalist. Also, contrary to what Tim says, I've never been "sworn to secrecy." Rather, some discussions are off-the-record, which is fairly common practice even if you're covering City Hall in Topeka. Doesn't mean I can't use the information -- as I said in the paragraph Tim elided, I do -- just that I can't quote a particular person. Tim writes: But you're sure showing all the signs of becoming just another Washington Insider." In truth I'm doing what a reporter should do: talk to lots of folks who are involved in a particular issue. If this makes me an "insider," I'll cop to that. But if I didn't meet and chat with thse folks, I wouldn't be doing my job. I mean, geez, if nothing else, look at what I've been writing. Last Thursday I wrote about how the Federal government should get out of the business of "protecting privacy." On Friday I wrote about how "protecting children" from animated cartoon images is another pretext for Net-censorship. Who else is saying that? If anything, I've becoming more cynical as I spend more time on this beat. -Declan