A lot of newsrooms, including Civil Beat, have journalists who in the past crossed over to govt or communications jobs. There's always been a debate in journalism about this. Some think the reporter is automatically tainted, others think it gives them more insight into their jobs and is ok as long as any potential conflicts of interest are avoided. In this case, Dayton doesn't cover anything related to Kenoi. I think it would have been more interesting if you had delved deeper into these issues instead of just declaring that Dayton's credibility is tainted because he is a "line crosser." That seems like a rather superficial opinion.  There are journalsists working at the NYT, Wapo and WSJ who have crossed the line. Have they all compromised their credibility? Also there seems to be a blatant conflict of interest in you acting as the media's reader rep when you are being paid by Civil Beat. How can readers know you are being fair in your criticism of CB and CB's competitors?