I think generallly Perry Bacon did a reasonably good job of capturing the President's remarks and including other points of view. The third element of his story advanced the discussion to the 2012 election, which is a good thing.

This story has elements from both candidates in a congressional race that is :Ground Zero" for immirgration reform. The reporter clearly has an understanding of the "local" perception of immigration. He did not impose a "national" strategy for covering a local race. This makes this particular NPR Story an example of good journalism.

The Arizona Republic, as usual, has done a great job of reporting what happened to Joe Arpaio. It provides discussion about the memorandum and the sources that used (i.e. Deputy Chief Frank Munnell) are reliable.

Here is a story that does NOT reflect very good journalism. It's a story basically documenting what President Obama said to the Hispanic Caucus Institute. The writer's purpose was to reinforce the stereotypes that in order to reach Hispanics you have say a little Spanish and tell them to hang in there because we (the Democrats) are with you and the they (the Republicans) are not. One could be offended by what was said. But, I would suggest the Associate Press staff was not very enterprising in looking for reaction comments on other anything beyond the predictable.

This story is fairly typical for television journalism. You get a comment from each of the gubernatorial candidates in Alabama with their view of immigration reform and one comment from one who is an Hispanic advocate. While we teach our journalism students to have at least three sources, when two of those sources are political candidates, it's good to have a fourth perspective. Someone who is not a politician other than Hilda Eisler would have helped in this case.

Antonio Olivo provided at least two perspectives on the resurrection of immigration legislation in the current Congress. He localized the story by focusing on the local figure, Dick Durbin of Illinois. The balanced exhibited in the story is the kind of balance one would expect from The Chicago Tribune

This is a blog piece. I think it's clear that there's an opinion on the part of the blogger. While there are quotes included and lots of hyperlinks. This is not what I would call good journalism. It's an update to an ongoing story, but not quite the same as a full news story. Yes, I'm well aware of the good work that ProPublica does. But, I'm not sure this is the best example of "balanced" journalistic product.

In this story, we see the political debate through the experience of an actual couple. The political players are identified, quoted and the personal struggle is explained through experiences of more than one person. The use of an unnamed couple is tolerable here because there is another couple that is named.