Poor journalism to say the least. Very lazy sourcing as all attributions are from pre-existing sources. No first person interviews or new information seems to be present in this boring presentation of an already overwritten occurence.
Very brief but an interesting topic. Liked how they added audio as it is a new and unusual approach on this site.
This is relatively good journalism. Seems very factual and quite interesting, but there is a lack in sourcing, and it seems a rather one-sided approach. Good journalism requires an unbiased third-party perspective.
This story did a good job presenting some interesting facts, but ultimately left the story emotionless and rather boring to read. Along with this, I found myself questioning the relevance and the credability of some of the journalistic work and interviews that took place in the article.





