I don't think this is good journalism because it doesn't offer anything other than information you could find on any website. There are no quotes, no sources to support the facts that are in the story. I want to hear from the boy, the grandmother, the police officer. There is no context and it is poorly written. I want to know why this is important. Who is the grandmother? Why did the boy hit the grandmother? There is no background or any research put into this story. There really isn't much of a story here at all.

I don't think this is good journalism. It seems to be full of opinion and hardly any facts. It is extremely unfair. It only has one source which didn't add anything to the story. Therefore, the reporter doesn't back up their story or information. It is poorly written and lacks depth. Therefore, the reporter doesn't really earn credibility as a journalist.

Yes, this is good journalism. It is very informative. It is well-sourced and well-rounded giving a pretty good overview of the topic. It's in-depth, covers a lot of important information. It's well-written, concise, but lacks a little in interest. I would suggest relating it to someone with a personal experience.

I don't think this is good journalism. I think it covered a lot of important information. However, I don't see much of this as new information. There are no sources which causes it to lack depth and research on that part. It was more fact based, however with no support. I do think this is a newsworthy topic, but as I said this lacks new information. I think it is well-written and with more in-depth research and sources it would be a good story.

I do think this is good journalism. It covers important information and makes it relevant to us. It is written clearly and concisely enough for us to understand. It includes background information as well as, important facts. It has a decent amount of sources that give it a more personal feel.

I think this is good journalism. However, I believe it lacks some quality information that could improve the story. It is based on a lot of important information and facts. It covers both sides of the argument. It lacks sources and quotes from individuals regarding the matter. This would add much more depth to this story if it included sources. It seems to be well-researched because it covers so much information. I think this story is important and clearly written. But, I think a little more sourcing would go a long way for this story.

I think this is semi-good journalism. I feel that it needs a lot of work to improve the quality of the story. It has a lot more opinion based on one sources viewpoint than anything else. It lacks fairness because it seems one-sided for the people. I don't feel like it was well-researched, more that the person went and found this one source and wrote the whole story around that source. I do think it is relevant because it's important for the people to know this. I think it is written clearly and concise, however it lacks important facts and information. I think with some work and a little more effort this could be a much better story.

I do think this is good journalism. It's a mix between facts and opinions, but it gives a lot of information. I think it argues particularly for the side of the people. It includes two sources which are enough, but more could make for a better story. I think it was well-researched, but it could have gone deeper into the story. However, they did use a source with personal experience which improves that. It is important and well-written.

I do think this is good journalism, however I think it could be improved. I think it lacked in certain areas and only went halfway. It covered a decent bit of information, but it focused on such a narrow topic. It lacked context needing a wider range of information covered to expand the information we get out of this story. I would say it was somewhat well-researched because what the story has here works, but I felt it could have gone further and more in-depth. It is newsworthy, but narrow. It is well-written, but could use improvement.

This is an updated version of the previous story. I definitely think this version is a much better story. I think they improved significantly. As I mentioned before, I felt the piece before lacked information and seemed like a summary of a much larger story. This story is the more in-depth version. It covered a lot of ground, filled with facts and information. It included a variety of sources. It was much more newsworthy than the first piece.

I don't think this is good journalism. The story doesn't give us any background. There really isn't much information here at all. It seems more like a summary of a story which leads into a larger piece. It has hardly any facts. There isn't really any sources except what could have been pulled from another story. You can tell the person didn't make a huge effort in researching this. It is newsworthy, however, there is no new information here. I think the writing has some quality to it, but seems it lacked the effort in forming a decent story here.

I definitely think this is good journalism. The story covered a lot of ground. It gave us a background and the facts. It included many important sources with meaningful comments that added to the story. You can tell it was well-researched because it included a lot of information from multiple sources and facts. It was clear, concise, and included very important information. I didn't give it a perfect 5 on the fair rating because although I think it included arguments for both sides of the story, I felt it tended to lean more to the people's side.

I don't believe this was well-written or well-sourced; therefore, I don't think this is very good journalism. I think it had facts, but most of those were taken from other sources and not from their own research. There really isn't a balance, and it seems one-sided. There isn't any background information and it seems like it's missing a point. It doesn't have substance. This story lacks a lot, so I wouldn't recommend it.