Yes, I think this certainly is good journalism. It's a bit long for an online article, but the reporter interviewed a variety of sources. The reporter also also provided more than ample context to fully understand the issue. While all of the sources were in support of finding ways to bring jobs back to America, I do not think that represents a bias in the story, because during an economic crisis it is difficult to find anyone who is not in support of bringing jobs into our country and away from outsourcing to other countries.

As far as fairness, sources, and bias, this story is an example of good journalism. The reporter interviewed the main players in the study but also outside experts in the field. Unfortunately, the story itself is written rather poorly. The paragraphs are too long and technical and the story takes too long to get to what I think the nut graf is. I feel that the mapping technology is the most interesting part of this story and should be up way higher. This story could have used an editor with some serious hacking abilities because it's just way too long and buliky.

This is ok journalism. The reporter presents three separate bills and provides only a one or two sentence summary of each bill, with very little context and sources to explain the background and impact of the story. The reporter also introduces the opposing view point using the phrase "Some environmentalists and residents presented the other side of the story," which I never think is necessary. If the reporter is doing a good job, we'll get that the next sources quoted represent the other side. She usually only quotes the representative backing the bill and sometimes one other source. It's just not enough reporting to explain the importance of each bill.

Yes, I think this is good journalism. The article quotes both Albert Snyder and the Westboro baptist lawyer. The article however quotes heavily form Snyder and very sparingly from any other outside experts. I would have liked to see the opinions of a couple other legal experts on both sides of the issue.

This article does not offer sufficient sources on both sides of the argument. The general structure seems to be that the reporter quotes a politician who denies climate change, and then bashes this politician. Disagreeing with politicians is fine and well, and part of what journalism is for, but the reporter should provide some sort of supporting evidence that these politicians are incorrect in their claims against climate change. The reporter's overall feeling about climate change colors the piece too much.

This article is almost good journalism, but is not quite there. The author, Peter H Gleick, appears credible due to his credentials, but his lack of attribution for his statistical information leaves me a bit weary. Generally, I trust the information he provides, but his arguments would be stronger if he could attribute the source of his statistical data.