Anyone else get the feeling it's about his access?

David Pugliese is obviously incensed about DND's renewed commitment to vetting ATI requests before releasing information into the public domain. I mean, using variations on the word "embarrassing" to describe the government's concerns twice in the opening paragraphs? Not too much editorializing there, David.

It makes you wonder if excessive reliance on ATI trolling for story ideas makes any other writers touchy - I'll watch for the follow up by other journalists in other papers now. In fact, it makes you wonder how many of the 217 news media ATI requests to DND last year were filed by Pugliese, and if there might be any correlation between that number and the level of his outrage here. This article has the distinct whiff of panic in it, like the author sees his own rice bowl being threatened.

I've got a counter-thesis to Pugliese's. The department knows it has released information that it shouldn't have under the ATI law recently, and wants to avoid such counterproductive errors in the future.

I support the idea of Access To Information, and transparency in government. But when it comes to national defence, there has to be a line that will not be crossed, and that hasn't always been the case in recent months. If this DND initiative can correct that problem without unduly restricting legitimate information, I'll applaud it.

For this "news" article to spend so much time speculating about DND's supposed motivations rather than on the facts of the development speaks volumes. Pugliese's article seems more than a tad self-serving and judgmental in this regard.