This is how journalism should be done. Rather than seeing this as a merely two-sided debate, between basically anti-union and pro-(US)Union partisans, Chen talked to people who are pro-labor but willing to take exception when their arguments are baseless and are basically anti-foreign-labor. Almost nobody does this kind of work anymore, including testing sources claims for accuracy.

This is a great example of bad journalism, on par with the stories from last week about how Iran is arming Iraq. The sourcing is sub-standard. They source their own journalists, and no one else by name.

I agree with others -- it makes no sense to put password-protected articles on NewsTrust.

This is the only report I've seen that deflates the myth that the Democrats have drastically different aims in the Medicare prescription debate, and that their latest effort is toothless. That probably requires a news source that has no financial interest in making more money for drug companies that buy advertisements.

This story goes beyond the usual Democrat vs. Republican "dichotomy" treatment and looks at persistent human needs. It's not a judgement on what government should be doing, but it exposes what it is and isn't doing, compared to the general perception. I learned a lot from this one.

Takes on a contentious issue with balance and insight. This is the kind of exploraton issues like this deserve, and it's done with concision.

This is an interesting but altogether irrelevant story, another example of partisans jumping on stupidity as "bias" -- but it's an interesting read.

There's really no way of knowing if this piece is accurate, but it's fair to say the story is pretty biased, practically cheering on the occupation forces and celebrating the ousting of the Islamists. Not that I think there's an appropriate side to take, but the lack of context, failure to mention US involvement, etc., are all kind of suspect.

This reporter has been bending over backwards to get DuPont to back up its claim that PFOA is harmless. A great example of dogged reporting.

Just good journalism, looking at various angles and rounding up the potential cumulative effect of numerous actions.

Takes an amazingly broad approach to this issue, going way beyond what the study's authors bothered doing.

This story has lots of depth and background, an it's by the most reputable source in contemporary journalism. Lydersen is one of my favorite public interest reporters.

This is a really important revelation, however unsurprising, but the reporter fails completely to get context as to WHY the disparity exists. There's no critique of the capitalism or colonialism, because the report it's based on (I read it) lacks this information. It would have been good to find some sources who can add context and explain how exactly the disparity came to pass.