The story does not have enough sources, and certainly doesn't show the big picture, when it comes to breast cancer. Over the last few years, studies have linked red meat, birth control, cola sodas and common household chemicals found in everything from plastics and cosmetics, to food - to breast cancer. The big question now is, what isn't linked to breast cancer? The article should have included information from other recent studies about breast cancer, as well as comments from scientists/researchers who might disagree with the results of the study.

What I liked, in particular, about this story was the author's transparency, achieved by including the Time's policy as a side-note at the end of the article. That said, I would have liked to see more information about other media outlets' policies in regards to blogging, and perhaps some links to other media professionals' blogs (perhaps some NYT writers included). The amount of sources in this article was slim.The article should also have included a written copy of CNN's policy, which may have been nearly impossible to obtain on daily deadline - but should definitely be added in an update as soon as possible.

It's a well-written, well-source editorial piece. I wouldn't consider it a news article because the author is advocating for one side. Nevertheless, the article is still informative, interesting and well researched