I had no idea one could use plastic bottles to build houses. In a way, the photos are a good inquiry starter because now, I'd like to read more about that method of construction. It would be nice to have more of the background info somewhere.
Good presentation of some issues of online education for younger students. Mostly critical, arguing that online courses are offered as cost-cutting measures, and are low quality, "click click courses". To be more balanced, the article could have included more about the way young people learn today ("digital natives") and considered whether well-designed courses could offer quality learning to those students.
Presents a different perspective by challenging the West's integrity in terms of both democratic values and political motivations.
Well documented point of view, but the sources are not always mentioned. Diverging viewpoints might mention that it is not only academic work that counts in a child's development, and that success is not only measured in terms of economical power. These viewpoints are not mentioned in this article.
This is a simple report on the results of a study on the impact of television on the language development of babies and toddlers. The study seems interesting - an investigation that could potentially get a much higher rating - but the article itself doesn't go very far beyond quoting the researcher.
The first half of the article is very informative on the different kinds of collaborations that take place over the Internet. It explains Shirky's hierarchy for classifying these interactions well and provides many good examples and links. The author's proposed view on the new socialism is well introduced. The second half of the article - starting at "Most people in the West" - is not as informative, factual and structured anymore, and becomes more of a diatribe on how the new Internet socialism might be changing the world - the author's point.
Seeing the growing collaboration on the Web as a form of "socialism" is an interesting viewpoint, but somewhat excessive, especially from a worldwide point of view. Access to these kinds of media remains limited in most developing countries, reserved mostly to the richer people. I liked the analysis on the different levels of social interactions and how "the sum outperforms the parts", a holistic view, really.
Interesting history of printed newspapers' response and adaptation to other media, in particular to the Web, well documented with links to several good sources. Yet the conclusion that "the newspapers failed to invent the Web" doesn't proceed from a sound analysis with clear criteria for success or failure, at least not in this article. The book by Boczkowski on which this article is partly based is likely to contain a sounder analysis and be much fairer.
Presents the findings and recommendations of the Stern Report comprehensively and precisely, includes exact figures and quotes, and a link to the actual report.
This article is obviously biased (against certain TV advertising) but it quotes reliable sources. provides original information on the effect of diet on behaviour , and makes you think...
I find the story unclear. It should explain the role of the Climate Change Program better, and emphasize what part of the findings are new thanks to the correction of the errors.
This is a CNN summary of Time's cover story. Are we rating the summary or the original story? The link provided is to the summary. I am not sure it makes sense to rate the summary's journalistic qualities: all the sources are missing to the many statements on what is happening on the Earth. The story as summarized seems clearly opinionated, favouring climate protection and emphasizing the lack of action of the US government. Therefore it is not impartial, which is not bad, as long as one knows about it. Although I personally agree with the content, I don't like the sensationalism and the use of excessive terms such as "crashing", "vanishing", "crumbling to slush", "collapse". The author is trying to persuade us emotionally ... More »
I find the subject of the article interesting enough, but the way it is presented is incomplete, unstructured and even somewhat confusing: Jones appears as an ID teaching advocate and yet rules against it. The journalists don't explain this very clearly. I found a much better story on this here: http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1671683,00.html But I couldn't post it on this site because it is too old.
I hold the view that it is not necessarily the contents of TV programs watched by children that is detrimental, but more the fact that watching TV keeps children from being actively engaged in other activities, including talking or being talked to. The study presented in the article supports the latter point.