This is not journalism or intended to be. It is a call to arms, a line in the sand. Be afraid. Very afraid. And elect John McCain.

This is Bill O'Reilly. It is not serious on any level. The column predicts, with no evidence whatsoever, that Iraq is quickly stablizing and will soon be an ally against Iran. Furthermore, when the public learns this, in spite of the best efforts of the media intent on hiding Bush's success, it will vote McCain into office. Yikes! This is basically Bill's summertime reading until the serious business of the War on Christmas heats up again in the fall. To the extent that one might want to rate this as journalism, on a scale of 1-100 it is 1.

This is that rare story that needs no sources. It calls upon the experience of the reader to evaluate its simple, focused and devasting point. That is, our corporate media is on that take. More precisely, the media, protected by the first amendment to keep the public informed when the government fails to, is guided by profit, not its constitutional mandate. The article is a condemnation of Russert and Williams and Kuric and all us who stand for it.

This is not good journalism. It does not inform the reader about the law, what Bush has or hasn't done, the provisions of the proposed law or Obama's position. It focuses only on McCain's statement. This is an important, complex topic which needs quite a bit of background. It does show that McCain is not willing to address it seriously either.

This is the conventional thinking about favorable factors for a McCain win. Anybody paying any attention to presidential politics could have written this. Some Hillary supporters say they will vote for him, he portrays himself as better protection again terrorism, Iraq isn't that horrible, etc. Nothing new. No insight. Pretty shallow.

This story about the fast running waters of HRC's way out may be already out of date. In any event it gives the conventional wisdom about her getting out. It is well-passed time. There is no attempt to offer any rationale for her continued tease. It is fair as far as it goes, but is not serious about addressing the anguish so many of her supporters claim to feel.

This is an opinion piece. It points out some problems McCain has in being himself. Bad public speaker, old, unable to look like an agent for change next to Obama (who is an agent for change). Standard stuff. Entirely fair comment. Not balanced or intended to be.

This is the way news should be reported. Fair, balanced, sourced. It also gives partisan opinions from both sides fairly and without comment. It provides background and practical consequences of the court's action. Good job on a controversial issue.

Straight forward account of polling results among 'elite' foreigners concerning the presidential election. No information about the polling technique and not the most important topic in the world. It does demonstrate in a general way how important our president is to the rest of the world, which reminds us what a responsibility we have in November.

This is an anti-Bush story wrapped in an Obama v. McCain story. It is strictly an opinion piece based on the assumption that Bush is a major screw up and this will place the successful candidate in a hole foreign policy-wise. Though an accurate assessment to me, not balanced at all.

This is inside baseball--not a primer. It is not sourced. If the reader is not already well informed about the topic and the players he will be lost. I was. We are not even told the party affiliations of the law makers mentioned. The writer is an expert with a strong point of view. It is a one man editorial on an etremely important issue, energy policy. I get the impression that if I read all the writer has written on this subject, I would be well informed. This article was coming in in the middle for me.

This article takes the candidates' campaign talk and turns it into policy. Obama saying he would talk to the bad guys is meaningless except that MCain can use it to brand him naive. McCain adopts a hardass stance because many conservatives like that. Either will likely be guided by other more practical forces when elected. So this article is superficial, but even handed. Not much there.

Not only is this an excellent article substantively, it also raises the important question of wider concern: what is McCain thinking?

This piece was tongue in cheeck--not meant to be a straight news story. It is funny and pokes at McCain and our legislative system. I call that fair, but not in the sense that the writer does not have a strong point of view herself. Gail Collins is always enjoyable and frequently right on--if you are a liberal dem like me.

Nothing special here. Not particularly penetrating glimpse at McCain's campaign tactics re: Iraq. On the other hand, it does show that McCain's tactics are nothing special. We've heard all this before and will hear it again and again. It is even handed with little if any slant.