Dear Shadi, contrary to your suspicion, privacy is the word. In person I can't be more candid. In here sharing ideas or information can first of all compromise my privacy and then others --although believe me in my case it isn't more sensitive than my diet! Even journalism is and must be restricted before it compromises peoples' or countries' privacy. And as much as this sentence didn't look good on a liberal, it usually is misappreciated. Say, in Watergate, if we assume it somehow damaged US' overall political health, it wasn't Woodward who jeopardised the status but the party reported and the following attempted cover-up. Ironically the Watergate involved some people invading someone's privacy. Also an honest journalist spends time figuring out what is the best way to report, so it doesn't undermine how the report's heard and at the same time if he's violating someone's privacy he shouldn't. You may have known I support, inactively!, more systematic, purposeful and revealing methods in our journalism. Finally what you may have heard in my tone is that I don't believe, and you wouldn't too, whatever information one has is for the public media. That is generally privacy, but the question is if one correctly classifies them for or not for public knowledge.

Back to Dokouhaki. As an independent journalist one tends to share more freely since she's barely a stakeholder in this or that affair. And also a journalist has much more to say than one idle sitting in her room or preoccupied with some other practice --hopefully still using her pen.