The column would've gone a little something like this:

"On Monday, it took 0.21 seconds to Google a Baltimore Sun article that discussed how the National Security Agency, in an effort to castrate Osama bin Laden, could use a Belgian company called the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, or SWIFT.

That article was published on Sept. 21, 2001.

So how, Dear Leaders, to justify the frothy-mouthed uproar over a June 23, 2006 article that states, 'counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database' called — yep — SWIFT? Simply put, there's no easier way to motivate a dim-witted, easily manipulated base in the run-up to the midterms than handing them a seditious scapegoat. (Hell, it's no different than raising the minimum wage four months before a gubernatorial election, right?)

By having looney-tune U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning brand the so-called liberal paper of record 'treasonous,' our Nam-ducking president and veep can continue making Nixon more worthy of Mt. Rushmore by the day. They can do this without anybody noticing the considerable damage they've done to what was a great land as recently as Nov. 6, 2000.

If the Times did anything wrong, and I'm not saying they did, it was to overplay a story that was one of the worst-kept secrets this side of Bush's cruise back to booze. But the government is wrong to accuse journalists of heinous crimes, especially when their nation has morphed into a Philip K. Dick short story in which people get arrested for thinking about committing crimes.

The people who play into this deception, like those who erroneously claim the paper put lives at risk, should be taken out behind the shed for some re-education.

And our leaders are filthy liars who, having tried to bully a newspaper out of printing a legitimate story, should be publicly humiliated. They're manipulative, unpatriotic thieves who should be called out for the manipulative, unpatriotic thieves they are. It's time for them to go."

Well, when I got to the keyboard, everything changed with a quickness. For it was then that I realized the far-right isn't the only group trying to shame the press into Joining the Team. Case in point, an e-mail that showed up in the inbox at 9 p.m. Monday:

The anti-war movement could really use the paper's help, and your readers would appreciate your efforts in covering its events. It's hard enough creating street demonstrations, where most of the populace DON'T get it. There is a learning curve in Philadelphia when it comes to street art. It's the least the paper could do to improve and educate the democratic voice in this town. ... [T]here seems to be a disconnect between the entire network of activism and news coverage in this town. You don't have a problem with local bars or the prostitutes, your paying customers, yet do you even know or list all the names of peace anti-war groups in Philadelphia?

The e-mail invited me to take a look at an 18-minute, 46-second video of the July 3 Declaration of Peace protest ... "Isn't that BIG news??" ... which our decision not to cover drove an activist to try and chide me into writing more about her movement.

I put aside my personal feelings on alcohol and hookers (not to mention the 3,000-word cover story about an anti-war protest that was still in our honor boxes at the time) and checked the link out. Here's what I saw: 18 minutes and 46 seconds of several dozen people affiliated with some 35 peace organizations marching up Market Street from Old City to the Federal Building at Sixth Street with a drum-and-fife corps, puppets and rote signs that read "Honk to Bring the Troops Home" and "Bush Lies." After a moment of silence, and bagpipes, they spoke about their goal of getting people to sign a pledge to, yep, bring the troops home.

News? Perhaps.

"BIG news??" Seems run-of-the-mill when compared to the grannies-getting-locked-up story the protesters walked by on their route. So as disappointed as the organizer wrote that she was ... "Whether or not you agree with the anti-war movement in Philadelphia, it does exist, and does warrant merit for coverage" ... it's equally disappointing to be accused of ignoring an important issue that you did, and will proudly continue to, commit substantial column inches to, both in news stories and editorials.

It was then that I wondered what's shadier: trying to shame and browbeat the press into covering an issue or trying to shame and browbeat the press into not covering it?

I lean toward the latter, but not as much as I used to.