“Presenting reliable facts is the most important and the most basic aspect of good journalism.” This is the guideline for News Trust reviewers. The heart of this article is “Experience with Medicare suggests that a government-run plan would have lower costs than private insurers; in addition, it would introduce more competition and keep premiums down.” This is not factual information. Instead it is liberal propaganda. A simple news search will find that Medicare is going broke and that liberals themselves are looking at Medicare as an example of inefficiency. Furthermore, the same loose “logic” could be applied to any and all ‘for profit’ insurance companies.

Charles Krauthammer attempts to keep up with the sophisticated spin of modern politics. A little sarcasm goes a long way.

This is an example of bad journalism. The author injects personal bias and opinion as a substitute for fact in assuming that it is clear what Cheney was referring to by “these cases where they went beyond the specific legal authorization”. This is factually untrue. The Chris Wallace interview did not specifically mention the spun examples of interrogations that the author insinuates Cheney must have been including in his response. The News Trust guide points out that factual truth is essential to quality journalism.

It would be interesting to see how this opinion piece favoring socialism over capitalism would play with the American public at large. I am left wondering how Obama is going to cover such a large portion of the estimated trillion dollar extra cost of expanded health care out of the Medicare program that this article portrays as the ultimate example of efficiency: “only 4% overhead” see: Obama Identifies $313 Billion for Health Care Through Medicaid and Medicare Savings (june 13 ABC news)

This is a misleading article. A large response to free medical services does not in and of itself indicate a U.S. health insurance problem. The article does not analyze who the responders were nor if the services they were availing are typically part of health insurance plans . While few have read the thousand page bills making their way through congress, the likelihood that they will include comprehensive dental and vision care for US citizens (not to mention non citizens) is small. The 50 million uninsured number is not sourced and is likely significantly inflated, after non citizens and others who actually do have access to health servicess are excluded . The data on health spending U.S. vs Britain is dubious. Health ... More »

This is a good example of bad journalism. The author is guilty of the very sin complained about. Take away the name calling, snide remarks, irrelevant dogmatic views about the Iraq war and impertinent insinuations about religion (none of which is helpful in a debate on health care) and you are left with only one or two premises stated as fact (yet not sourced and likely untrue): namely that 50 million Americans can not afford health insurance and that our current health insurance system kills 18,000 Americans annually. False assumptions are cardinal to a fantasy world.

Obama is consistent in that he will always portray his opposition of the very sins he commits. The President consistently misinforms while accusing his critics of misinformation. David Brooks of the Times refers to the Presidents health reform claims as 'telling whoppers' all the while Obama accuses his critics of gross mistruths. This is a propaganda piece and not quality journalism

The article provides some insight, but only scratches the surface on the challenge facing universal education. We are aimless in our approach to solution. The plan called “Engineered Paradigm Expulsion in American Education” promotes a realistic and comprehensive resolution of the difficulties plaguing our schools.

We first went wrong in our use of technology in our schools when we let technologically backward educators make the decisions on how to put computers to use. It is far more important to have technically competent educators use modern computing power to research, analyze and manage the learning process than to worry about student skills with a mouse or a joy stick. Nothing characterizes education reform more accurately than the term: aimless.. Rejecting technology in our schools based on the inept application of it by uneducated educators, misses the boat.

Richard Cohen provides a coherent argument for what not to do. We have demonstrated too many times that simply throwing money at education, leaving it to educators to spend it, simply results in wasted money. The article is weak on what we should do instead. We need to grasp the full scope of the challenge, list all of the variables that impact quality learning, find ways to measure each (even if they are difficult) and proceed with a reiterated improvement program. Because we have not done all of this, our efforts have been and continue to be aimless.

This article is well written, as far as it goes. This is about as good as it gets when education is the subject matter. Almost without exception our efforts to improve education are aimless and scatterbrained. This is apparent with Obama’s laundry list. We fail to assess the full scope of the challenge. We have poor to nonexistent means to measure the variables that impact quality education. Perpetual aimlessness is the most accurate descriptor of American educational reform.

Assessing the journalism and without taking sides on the particular issues mentioned that I assume those who lean left approve of and those who lean right reject, this article highlights an unprecedented aspect of the current election. Checks and balances have been an important part of our system of governing ourselves. With a liberal clean sweep of congress and the presidency, coupled with a left leaning MSM as a ‘watchdog,’ the country may be in for a shock next year. I fear the nation is in poor condition to suffer such a fate.

Independent ‘fact checkers’ are just as guilty of letting their biases substitute for facts as are other journalistic sources. This includes factcheck.org for example. See my review of the Sept. 11 “Off Base on Sex Education” article. One might also compare factcheck.orgs’ review of the Vice Presidential debate with the fact checking of Ann Coulters’ Oct 8 editorial. It also might include reviewers of ‘NewsTrust’ who can not stick to just a critique of the journalism without injecting some partisan tirade. If ‘fact checkers’ would print unedited and full responses from the candidate or source being questioned for truthfulness, their credibility would be improved. Unfortunately this weak journalism only ... More »

Generally, I encourage serious, piercing critiques of political proclamations. Political bias and or unbridled enthusiasm for being critical, however, can often undo the pursuit of truth in deconstructing political advertising. In this case I find these faults with this review: 1) The reviewer states that “the ad's insinuation” is that Obama “supports explicit sex education for kindergarteners”. Whereas this assumption may be obvious to the author, it is not supported with any rational or itemized supporting facts. 2) This review itself, in its bold section headlines and elsewhere, insinuates that the entire ad is false. Which is an insinuation that is not true. 3) The argument that the ad should have included statements ... More »

There are two views of the world. Some think extremists are mean because the US has not been nice. If we only play nice then the rest of the world will play nice. Others think that extremists are predators who will see weakness in such action and will be motivated to exploitation. While positive leadership in the world would seem to require setting a good example, the platform advocated by the DNC will not reassure those of the other camp. ‘Pie in the sky’ idealism coupled with inexperience will likely unnerve more than it will comfort. While this article is informative of Obama proposals, it lacks depth in covering the full scope of the debate.

I find my appetite for lefty logic based on the ‘stupid’ American voter has soured beyond redemption. The “How else do you explain” rational where the author limits the possibilities in reasoning to lead to only one predetermined conclusion is so common to extremist debate tactics that it has become trite. Other than these large objections this opinion peace has a consistent style that flows smoothly from each unsupported point of conjecture to the next.

The full extent of our financial crisis is barely scratched in this article. A factor few economist mention is the poor job we are doing in the business of education. In a global, high tech economy, the distribution of wealth will eventually drift toward societies of the well educated. The lead time required to correct the problem is long. We are assured of future suffering for our failure. What’s worse, we have little hope of escaping the aimlessness of our current educational endeavor. This is true regardless of how clear it becomes of this failure’s economic impact. The article is fairly well written, but I fault its lack of context relative to the full scope of the problem.

Journalistically, this article takes a single point of view and supports it in a linear fashion. A readers understanding could be improved by a follow-up that displays each of this article’s items of ‘proof’ as seen from the Obama camp. An editorial such as this is not obligated to prove the other side of the argument, so I do not fault the lack of balance. The author pursues a singular, stated at the outset, journalistic objective: that Obama’s Op Ed article was dishonest. Assuming that each referenced quote is accurate, they all support that singular objective. The article does contain spin and embellished adjectives. As with all editorials, it’s ‘buyer beware’ in this regard. The risk that the author runs is that the ... More »

This article notifies the reader that Democrats and Republicans are calling each other names in regard to oil policy and accomplishing little else. How is this news? There are new elements to the debate, like the assertion that new technology has diminished the environmental risks of oil drilling, but this was not mentioned in this article. What do pro-drilling and anti-drilling experts say about this point? Who knows? The reporter failed to do this basic research for us, yet felt obligated to advise us that left and right prefer to insinuate evil in their opposite camp, as if the public was unaware of this tiresome reality.

Those who lean left have conversations that are coherent only if they are with others who lean left. Those who lean left have had trials and convictions of ‘criminals’ that only they recognize. With all of their rhetoric about the rule of law, they did not allow those convicted to be present or represented by legal counsel. I editorialize here, because the challenge of a critique of this journalism is to first make sense of it. The article makes little sense if all the ‘assumptions’ of Bush detestation go missing.

These attempts by journalist to generate scandal may sell newspapers, but I fail to see what service they provide to the public. The carefully crafted word selection (‘cohabited’, ‘nine months’, etc.), and ingenuity exhibited in the presentation of data mixed with spin and rumor (‘while still legally married’, ‘Reagan administration was stunned’) was intended to maximize the taint of scandal. All of the basic facts of this story could have been presented matter-of-factly without the embellishments. This kind of journalism will only encourage retaliatory efforts from the other camps. It will not aid any candidate in the long term. It is a trivial distraction from significant issues the voters need to wrestle with.

Referring to this article as ‘disjointed’ is too kind. Scatterbrained is more appropriate. Health care is a tough nut to crack, with few answers available that do not engender high costs and difficult drawbacks. This article attempts to tie tragic incidents to political health plans. Is there some proof that government run; socialized medicine always avoids such occurrences, and further proof that hospitals with a profit incentive always engender them? The reporter is obligated to provide that missing information. My suspicion is that the author started from a political motivation and is desperate to create arguments to demonize the opposition. Desperate propaganda should be clearly labeled as such. On the plus side, the links ... More »

This article is an interesting look at the inside politics of the Obama campaign. Obama’s cold calculus that the ‘lefties’ irrational hatred of Bush, unequivocally seals their vote, is likely accurate. Beyond appearances, why spend any further political capital on them? A parallel is at play on the Republican side of course. Perhaps a follow up article on the political mathematics of politicians pursuing only those voters who are persuadable is needed. While this will leave many of us dismayed, it could be followed by a third article providing advice to voters regarding a best guess as to how a politician will actually govern, once elected. Both McCain and Obama advocate change. Unfortunately, change and shiftiness are ... More »

The main thrust of this article is the emotional writhing of a self confessed liberal over the recent “centrist maneuvers” of Obama. In the end, the writer’s consternation is assuaged by the unsupported rationalization that Obama will return to his liberal foundation once the election is won. Without debating the logic of this position, why should we be concerned about the reporters emotional flailing? It is likely that he is of the strain of liberal who will be wringing his hands about some irrational pessimism regardless.

This article is well written in my judgment. It is an example of how complex political issues can be reported on, in a professional manner. Should it be acceptable for a candidate to change his/her mind when circumstances change? Does this include the switch from primary to general election? Can a skillful politician blur the distinction between adapting to $4 gasoline with changed policy positions; and adapting to a new political calculus after a primary election is sown up? The worthiness of a flip depends on its rational.

This is a story about silliness being used to combat silliness. In the final analysis, little is gained save for glorification of the trivial. . The reporter made no attempt to put any of the information in perspective or proportion. Are there a hundred or a hundred million voters concerned about a candidate’s middle name? If voters are this irrational, shouldn’t the reporter have researched possible medical assistance, as a public service?

It is a challenge to determine the intended focus of this news report. Is it to recount shallow reports that have been broadcast nationally about Obama’s religious background? Or is it to insinuate that Democrats have been ‘gamed’ in the past over this topic and that Obama is attempting to out game the gaming this time around? What positive relevance is there to the discussion? I find little socially redeeming value in this scatterbrained reporting. It does little good to either candidate, either party, the public or the credibility of ABC news.

It is not clear what McCain’s disagreement with one member of the FEC (politically motivated?) during the primaries, has to do with Obama’s decision to reject public finances for his general election campaign. Avoiding confusion is a primary objective of good journalism.

The article is propaganda, not news.

Other than an example of confused primordial journalism, I find little of value in this article. The author is repeatedly self contradicted, proposes preposterous notions (like a well intentioned, nuclear armed Iranian Ayatollah) with temerity, and replays left-wing accusations as fact. Liberal lickspittles will giggle and righties will be outraged. Where does that get us? Propaganda should be printed under a clearly marked designation.

Bill Adair provides a generally coherent tour of the ins and outs of branding politicians as liberal or conservative via a number of groups. Further information that might have been helpful would be to indicate the spread in a particular rating system between first and last. If Obama or Mc Cain ranked tenth instead of first, yet there isn’t a dimes worth of difference between first and twenty first, then being tenth doesn’t mean much. A few more sentences devoted to flushing out what liberal - conservative social, economic and foreign policy positions are would also improve the article. The nation’s voters need clear concepts repeated in this regard to avoid the ills of the propaganda machines.

Unstated hidden agendas are always a recipe for bad journalism. The hidden premises of this article are that Iraqis are genetically incapable of evolving beyond a barbaric existence and that any outcome short of a return to the Garden of Eden is not worth our effort. A surrender now or a surrender later are the only possibilities the author allows. Furthermore, surrender is the only avenue the author allows to avoid “further damage to US global standing, and continued deferral of attention to other pressing challenges”. The logic of this position is suspect.

The speakers insinuate that the mainstream news media are shallow and in pursuit of sensationalism for the sake of their ratings, because the only alternative is boring. While I may agree with the shallow, self interest bias of these folks, I am not convinced of the ‘only alternative’ assumption. The speakers own coverage would have been more interesting if they were less shallow (had researched) and provided each camp’s views on debates along with the historical purposes for having them. Review of high purposes keeps journalism focused and as a result keeps the public more focused. I fear the American electorate is excessively scatterbrained as a result of scatterbrained journalism.

When economic experts can view Obama's tax proposals in ways to support Mc Cain's statement, it is not fair to call his (Mc Cain's) position completely false. Both sides can find experts to spin economic stats. This does not make a statement completely false. A key issue in the debate involves use of tax policy to redistrubute wealth. Both sides can argue this, but unfortunately, it was missing from the article.