Ahhh, if I were only blessed with an opportunity to have someone or some progressive organization put me on their payroll, and set me loose to invest sufficient amounts of time to make calls on top of conducting extensive database research, then I no doubt would be able to place these government acquisitions and projects in  better context. Despite uncovering oftentimes critical and exclusive information before the rest of global media does, I confess that I am not in a position to place these developments in such context.

In the meantime, here's a quick tutorial for those who are curious or unaware. Start by contacting the Media Affairs (or Public Affairs or some other equivalent) unit of a targeted agency or department, and express your need to talk to someone about the particular issue at hand. If no one appears to be calling you back that day, call again before the close of business to reiterate your request to interview an agency representative who can address you concerns.

Public relations flacks, particularly at the government level, often lack the information you are seeking -- but, it should be noted, they sometimes are very eager to connect with you the right contact (depending on which entity you're calling, of course; I have found DoJ flacks to be useless, whereas -- perhaps surprisingly -- DoD flacks are generally capable of [eventually]hooking you up with someone to interview).

Here's the clincher: the key is not to continually rely on Public Affairs time after time for info. The key is to get the names, phone numbers and e-mails of the higher-ups, and develop a relationship with them that will enable you to someday call that person directly and skip right over the PR flacks. Some folks will never defy the rule that Public Affairs MUST be the first point of contact for all media inquiries. Others are willing. You'll have to make that differentiation, which won't be difficult in light of their positive or negative response.

Depending on which publication you are writing for, your editor may or may not allow you to use anonymous sources. If you are afforded that opportunity, quickly tell your source everything "is on background and not for attribution." In other words, you won't use their name or use direct quotes that they may utter. They may allow you to refer to them in your article as "a knowledgeable governmment source" or even "an FBI [etc.] source." Clarify what they will allow, without belaboring the point, or else you risk freaking them out and they panic, suddenly advising you that everything they said was on "deep background," meaning that you will have to confirm that information elsewhere -- they pointed you in the right direction, and the rest is up you. That's better than nothing, but it's half a loaf at best. Now you must start all over with someone else, better prepared but pressed for time.

I hope that helps. I would take that approach with everything I do, but considering that the economy stinks -- particularly in rural Pa. where I live -- I'm consumed with working part-time while fortunately selling (rather than donating) articles to various publications occasionally.