Standard journalism is usually in text form, which is more generic and monotonous. But in video form, you can actually see what the journalism is explaining to you.

Because this displays the qualities of how people are fighting for human rights in Latin America, and this is about an example of a human right people are fighting for. And the struggle is explained in great detail.

This isn't journalism at all. Just a stupid list of laws.

There are great topics in the article and they are presented well, but the story itself could be something that few people care about.

This article does a thurogh job of explaining how Goldman Sachs and other people who commit fraud contribute to the financial crisis. Not only that, the article also had a great introduction on the subject matter in the form of mentioning a political cartoon. Paul Krugman did refer to himself in first person twice, but that wasn't all that important. He did a superb job of explaining the problem with fraud and how it affects the economy.

As a Fiji Times article, this article handles the story professionally, but, some people don't seem to be interested in Fiji's education.

I am not sure if it is quality journalism or not. There is insight to the topic of the article, but there's only one paragraph and it only explains the terrorist attack itself.

No, because it just comments on the fact that a woman became the new leader of Kyrgyztan, but never explains how the public reacted or the controversy that it caused.

This gives us a straight-forward timeline of events for Asian health care and how it has been progressing lately. Each event is explained in a detailed paragraph solidly explaining each health care update.

This lets us understand the fundamentals of trade and gives us the in-depth review of the way that the World Trade Report works. And it does it elaborately, and with no skimp on detail.

This is quality journalism because of how Cutler used elaborate paragraphs and detailed explanations to explain how Asia's economy is growing, and how it manages to avoid problems with the economy. But he didn't put in so much detail for the reader to get confused and want to start to give up on reading.

I would say that this isn't really quality journalism because major points are said in one or two sentences in ultra-short paragraphs, there are no quotations, and the explanations are just flat-out shallow. With so little insight to this article, I have little insight to this review.

This report what we would want from America's economy right now. We wanted there to be sources of energy other than oil and coal, so that the atmosphere would not be harmed anymore. Chances are, there are slimeballs who want to continue using coal, just because it's cheaper.

This details many examples of when people migrating from Asia have been facing tons of problems when coming to America. It lists out more examples than you can think of, and most of them are from various regions in Asia.

I would say that this is something to think about, but I'm not sure if this would help to solve our problems with North Korea. These debates are something that have been going on for quite some time, and I want to know what the U.N. is truly planning.

I think this might be quality journalism, because it states out that we should keep journalism alive, and if we don't do something fast, how else would the news be given out?