Hard to critique as journalism in the pure sense. It is a paraphrased "report" o (pretty fair) of a candidate's stump to energize a base through managed conflict. The debate is the foreground context. Fact checking (not attempted)would reveal a huge spin from the claimed accusations. In content, players are identified, but their roles (actual) in the claim are spun.Some "factual" statements of the obvious "concerns to play to the audience., Balance from the accused was later added as an update. Sourcing by only the accuser and accused, and merely reported. Depth limited to un verified partisan statements on both sides.Enterprising not in evidence. Absolutly relevent from the aspect of medias position of extending the conflict ... More »

Average. Rehashes much. New insights are left up to "quoted" rather than unnamed sources. Informative to me because I had not yet seen the prosecutorial basis (RIPA Act-Sect. 79) reported before. Most interesting to me was the Quote by Paul Farhi: “The fact he shut down a newspaper reflects how seriously the scandal is affecting a whole empire.” I agree with the statement, however it would be interesting to me if a journalist would investigate that shutdown in depth. It happened SO rapidly that I'm not sure it occurred,wholely for reasons generally stated as above or because of the pending takeover. See my opinion in the "comments".

Good journalism. Gives historical perspective of technology influence on communications. The statement "put control of the flow of information into the hands of a select few." is where I feel a lack of context. Key words in that phrase "control" "flow" and select few". Todays technology as gifted by the powers that be has "enabled access" to many (per this journalist: barriers to entry fall) t, but control remains in the hands of, not the many, rather still a few "gatekeepers" (see my opinion comment not included as part of the review). Simple example:sound bite word counts, partisan "scrubbing" of blog posts, and ultimate legal constraints (good and bad) by law enforcement are frequently used to "control" and even "suppress" ... More »

Good journalism. My reason is a personal one in which I have evaluated the testimonies and scenarios to my own suspicions as the information was stifled and filtered as it passed on to the public. My experience includes 21 years in a nuclear research laboratory. While the research covered nearly every phase and range of plant operations and component testing (in simulated reactor operating environments including chemistry, temperatures, pressures, flows etc.) A major part was engineering testing for ECCS Emergency Core Cooling Tests). The worst case scenarios included double guillotine breaks (coolant pipes break in two places and drop out, essentially dumping the water onto the floor instead of through the core. That stated, I ... More »

It is good journalism. There is a problem in that this type of story the journalist is heavily dependent on qualified sourcing since it is a highly technical topic. Typically such sourcing tries to simplify for general consumption while sources are often defending the side of the issue to which they lean. It is difficult to find an honest broker in the nuclear debate. Prime example in this article is the ommission of any reference to "embrittlement"due to radiation (affecting the toughness of the reactor vessels and their ability to withstand pressure shocks) . It also does not address stress corrosion cracking that occurs over time. Coolant water chemistry is monitured to decide when to replace staem generator tubes due to ... More »

Good journalism. First: The column does not try to take on the full FOX v Reality debate. Focuses on a specific point raised in the interview and sticks with it. Stewart's premise supported by several "recognized authorities' in the polling industry (the same often used by FOX). Wallace's defense paraphrased "our lovers love us". However, one bit of deception by journalist Steve Benen: "Fox News’ minions 'aren’t the least bit disappointed' with what the Republican news network provides," wraps his bias around a soundbite that is correct, but not the full statement, He substitutes "Republican" and calls the viewers "minions, a term of contempt (using the same tactics as the network he is exposing. In depth by citing many ... More »

Excellent journalism. Shines the spotlight into the dark corners, under the rocks, and in the sewers that now permeate the governmental, corporate and societal infrastructure, partticularly the judicial branch, aided and abetted by the corporate information spy technology masters. Innovative because it discloses what corporate controlled media conglomerates really do not want the citizens to know. A well known, but in this case subtle, implication demonstrated by this piece is that the FOIA is a nearly impenetrable wall, or in this case strong enough to delay revelations until the outlaws have rode out of town and off into the sunset. 2007 to 2011??? Shut up!!! AND it's published on the weekend when nobody is watching (who ... More »

Much insight, courage, in short piece. My opinion disclaimer. I served 8 yrs, U.S. Navy, Viet Nam era. None loves, respects, admires military comrades, past, present, future more. I honor and respect their courage and commitment and service. While serving, I did not question “why” I was deployed. That’s as it should be. That said, Mr. Scheer’s column is particularly enterprising in two aspects. FIRST, he boldly ties "U.S. military muscle" to its (media taboo) metamorphic transition from idealistic patriotic defender of democracy and freedom, as currently proclaimed, to its factual corporate acquisition/enforcer mission: control of raw materials / world markets, subjugation / control of territories, and colonization ... More »

Excellent journalism. Much insight and food for thought in compact understandable form. Although this column is slotted for review as “opinion”, it draws on Dr. Krotoski’s education and expertise (PhD/Social Psychology and Journalist, Broadcaster), Her informed professional analysis of the impact of current technology on the social institution “religion” includes very visible and verifiable effects (religious websites, wide distribution of religious interpretation, etc), of the internet proliferation. Her presentation uses a balance of sources to reinforce, or argue further her observations, premises and conclusions. In capsule form, she has woven observable facts to describe what isultimately a real life challenge ... More »

Good journalism. Questions were no leading, rather open ended. Sourcing is limited because it is an interview, however the credentials of Dr. Kaku are brought forth in the interview to establish his credibility and "authority" to analyze the situation. I wish Ms Goodman would have asked about the spent fuel pools so I rated it incomplete. Flooding the pools to cool surely had overflow and spread of contamination.The interview was focused on the reactors only. The out-of-control car was an excellent analogy for simplification of the events, and the Faustian bargain analogy hit the nail on the head regarding future debate on the issue. Very enjoyable journalism

Absolutely good journalism. Some opinion, but mostly "just the facts Ma'am". Mr. Hightower's exposure of "congress critters" cuts all party llines. This time he aims "right" (pun intended)and hits the bullseye. His research into the "goings on" and kissy-face huggy-bear relationships between the power brokers who have buried democracy, and the elected who are supposed to protect democracy, is excellent. It is an indictment of the media also. Because truth is detrimental to power over the people, Mr. Hightower has been been pushed into the margins by the likes of the Rupert Murdocks who buy up the independent stations and then drop such commentary from the programming. That is verifiable!. I have seen it here in Pittsburgh, ... More »

As a detailed statement of the obvious, good. Does not go to ROOT cause. Continues to "mystify" a very simple root cause.The following quote from the column: “Whether prosecutors and regulators have been aggressive enough in pursuing wrongdoing is likely to long be a subject of debate. All say they have done the best they could under difficult circumstances.” What “all say” is a LIE and a COVER-UP.” All of the questions are ABSOLUTELY answered in House Congressional Record, December 6, 1995, pages H 14041 thru H 14047. I have very frequently posted (including on NewsTrust), and sent(certified mail) copies to media and political power brokers. These types of articles are red herrings, and will be forever because, ... More »

Yes. Presents latest developments as best the journalist can discern from limited sources. Also interesting (and perhaps reflecting the industries controllingl influence over a government trying to triage a corporate catastrophe) is a link below the story "Int'l Commission Recommends Japan Temporarily Increase Radiation Limits for the Public. Perhaps One needs to sit in a corner and ponder that "solution/"...or not. Don't worry, be happy, we're raising your limits, Ergo: qualifying the PR statements years from now that few member of the public were exposed to radiation that exceeded the standards set by the government.

In a scenario such as this, journalists are limited by the filtered information the "gatekeepers" (government and industry PR contacts) deem "necessary and appropriate to promulgate. Many factors influence how far open the gates are. Reality on the ground? Prevent public panic? Industry image for financial survival? Speculation? Just don't know? etc. ad nauseam. This piece is best viewed as a synoptic of the effects of many aspects of the ongoing tragedy. A technology that exists are robotic cameras designed for high radiation areas. Haven't seen or heard (may have missed) of observations by such technology. Good synopsis.

I believe it is good journalism as an informed OpEd piece. The conclusion, "world is in denial about nuclear power", is supported by a series of historical reminders that provide, in capsule form, the points of nuclear debate over time. The conclusion based on his presentation is summed up as: "“This leaves us with a choice between walking back from a technology that we decide is too dangerous or normalizing the risks of nuclear energy and accepting that an occasional Fukushima is the price we have to pay for a world with less carbon dioxide. It is wishful thinking to believe there is a third choice of nuclear energy without nuclear accidents.”, the inference is that the denial of risk (which is real and supported by tragic ... More »