I thought it was an excellent article. Although I'm sure we all have different *specific* people and policies in mind, so who you see as an unwitting shill I might see as a fearless activist and vice versa, the general message of trust not in princes is a useful one even if it is only a standard bit of realistic analysis.

Why can't they just leave your titles as-are to begin with? Do you not submit a title? Are your titles so horribly written they would make loyal readers unsubscribe and flee? Are they full of spelling errors? Do you use long complex abbreviations in your titles which no one ever gets? Do you kidnap titles to self-advertise FinkelsteinsV1agraStore.com?

Chris: Thanks, always good to know someone's reading!

Philipp: I don't know. My title for this one was "A Letter To Lessig On Corruption". I know that it's the most attention-grabbing possibility, but it was a more accurate description.

Seth-- Very good. "One might even call the process 'corrupt'." -- that's putting it mildly! I like the way Shelley summed it up: "Will Mr. Lessig, then, begin his battle at home–among the attention brokers that surround him? Whom he calls friends, and compatriots?"

Not to lose faith in Shelley, but if there was a *different* event/story which had caught her up to the news about Lessig, I was curious what it was...

BTW, what's with the Guardian favoring TinyURL's? They're opaque and unfriendly. Your link to "ability to be heard" is this:
http://tinyurl.com/hhjz8

which improbably goes here:
http://www.kanoodle.com/return.cool?query=shopping:discount%20shopping:sweepstakes/prizes&id=87732021

Jon - Unfortunately, I don't have any connection to the Guardian's web URL policies.