This article has a reasonable amount of background, though there is a distinct lack of supporting information/references. The leaps from the drought to the collapse of Sumerian civilization are not well stated, and the little blurb at the bottom that 'suggests' how modern civilizations are vulnerable feels like blatant propaganda.
This is a fine example of science reporting. The information is tentative, and clearly called out as such.
This article is interesting, in that it highlights the fact that internet was shut down very easily in Egypt, but the article sorely lacks in real information about the differences between Egypt and other locations. A more enterprising reporter might have provided background on connections in better connected countries, and even some measure of how easy it would be to do the same thing in various regions of the world. In other words, provide context and depth to the story.
I find it very interesting that there is no historical context given. Especially about how much housing prices had risen before the present drop.
A good explanation of what is really happening, with clear indications of scientific uncertainty where there are uncertainties.
This article is an example of very bad reporting on a possibly interesting subject. The use of 'goons' and 'gestapo' are prime examples of ridiculous reporting.
Unfortunately, this was a bunch of speculation that isn't quite true. The new life form was not 'discovered', but rather 'grown' in a lab.
This is written in a scattered, imprecise manner, citing 'expert opinions' without providing much background, and masquerading gut feelings as informed opinion. Overall it does attempt to be fair, citing a breadth of opinions.
This article is a bit two narrow, more like a small piece of a larger story. It would have been nice to have more context, and more data to help fill in the picture.
This opinion piece makes an extremely good argument for using the 'placebo' effect to enhance current treatments. It is well written and well documented.
There are quite a number of unsubstantiated claims especially about 'climategate'. Other sites, articles, and primary sources have debunked much of the innuendo repeated here. In addition, there are factual statements that are misleading. The Himalayan glacier melt date was transposed, an error, but the spin is interesting.
The idea that science is infallible is an easy strawman to hold up and tear down. It is not good journalism to deliberately mislead this way.
The story is lacking in background information, though it does allude to historical information that can be searched up on the web.
A simple report of a study in a very simple, straightforward manner. Not in depth, but it provides a window into recent research.
This article goes into quite a bit of depth about the current state of affairs with respect to treatment of PTSD by the VA. It definitely has a slight bias, but it presents all sides.
Paul Krugman makes his point quite eloquently. He cites a reasonable amount of evidence for his point of view.
This cites various studies and anecdotes in a humorous manner to put forth a very clear hypothesis on where the 'birther' movement originates.
The climate change debate appears to be about all the wrong things. Since there is a vocal minority that insists that there is no such thing, we can't actually have meaningful public conversations about the real impacts, and what degree of climate change is acceptable.