This is a well-written and informative story that includes some good facts and examples that illustrate the writer's points. Pluses include the data and other information on how Canada has handled its deficit, immigration, and employment. Especially interesting is the reminder of the problems Canada had in the 1990's and what the government did to alleviate them. The story is also written in a balanced way even though the thrust is favorable to how Canada has handled things. However, it could be strengthened by including a few more specifics, such as just how the provinces handled the cuts to social spending and how much of a pinch was felt by its people. Finally, although I read this story with great interest--and ... More »

An interesting and informative article on Roger Ailes. The interview format is effective, and the informative seems well-balanced and fair. Whether you agree or disagree about Ailes' talents, there are both positives and negatives here, and the treatment is respectful. The book author has a lot of opinions that are not supported very well in this interview, and one only hopes that the support shows up in his book. As one who does not like Roger Ailes and who wishes someone with his influence and talent would serve humanity a bit better, this seems like a "fair and balanced" article.

Although the format of Kurtz's column clearly suggests to the reader that it will be simply a laundry list of general issues, it still disappoints because of the superficiality of the coverage. Too many topics are left with unanswered questions or worse, references to events or issues that are not known to the general reader, even those in D.C. This kind of piece is not very good journalism since it suggests a lazy and superficial approach to whatever topic is being covered. As far as the headline goes, the age issue provides absolutely no new information or insights.

For the WSJ, which usually tilts heavily right, this is a balanced discussion of Obama's economic plans. It is informative, and the language is mostly neutral rather than loaded with subtext. I like the inset of Obama/McCain views on various eonomic aspects, and the language there is also neutral. One weakness is the discussion of "Carter's Second Term." This paragraph doesn't follow clearly from what has gone before and looks like simply an effort to add the McCain view to the information. But it isn't effective because it lacks connections to the earlier flow of information.

This article provides a lot of information regarding media influence and elections. The writer includes "expert" opinions along with references. However, it is poorly organized, it's repetitive, and its claims lack effective support. Here are the problems: (1) It lacks coherence in almost every paragraph; (2) It cites as experts people not generally known to most readers, thus reducing the strength of their opinions; (3) It makes many claims with little support, and what support is provided consists of a short opinion by the generally unknown experts; (4) some claims are without support and make no logical sense. For example, one of the main claims states that the media has a greater influence on what issues are important rather ... More »

This is one of George Will's better columns in terms of clear points made followed by supporting evidence and explanation. His explanation of what the Supreme Court actually said and its implications is informative. He provides support for his position that includes excellent evidence from the conservative Cato Institute. He is not confrontational regarding McCain's position on the issue, but the suggestion is clear that McCain does not understand the court's ruling and that he has little knowledge of history.

This is a fairly good explanation of what McCain means to do with Social Security. I like the information regarding the word choice between "privatization" and "personal accounts." The piece is a good start on discovering McCain's view of the issue. However, it does not provide quite enough information to answer the obvious questions (e.g. how is McCain's plan different from Bush's and how would we keep the system "intact" with personal accounts for some?") Finally, the last paragraph makes little sense; it's irrelevant that McCain believes he can have personal accounts and keep SS intact. Is that possible? The DNC's claim that McCain favors "privatization" by one means or another is true--not "Half True."

Although columnists are expected to be biased and therefore, given some latitude for their lack of fairness, Froomkin fails on almost every aspect in this piece about Bush. It's not that it lacks balance because we are expecting that. But it is poorly written and doesn't seem to have a point other than Bush is an idiot, and even that point isn't clearly expressed. To begin with, what does he mean by "senioritis"? To me that refers to seniors in school skipping classes just before they graduate etc. The term doesn't really compute for me on this topic. The piece rambles, is disjointed, and fails to make a clear point. No matter how much I might agree with the possible topic here, Froomkin has dropped the ball on this one. Maybe ... More »

Fascinating TV piece on Obama that suggests a wide-ranging interest in Obama as a candidate and the presidential election in general. Actual facts and information in these snippets of global media coverage is sparse, but taken as a whole, the piece is quite informative. Its major weakness from a journalistic view is that there is no real critical analysis.

This is an interesting story, but it is lacking in many ways. The old fundamentals of who, what, where, when, why, and how are not all covered. The journalistic strengths are (1) a relative lack of obvious bias and (2) an excellent explanation of the "what" aspects of the story. Where the story is weak is in the "why" part of the information. Has there been a problem with bloggers and AP stories? Has the problem cost AP money? Why would AP choose to do this right now? Another weak aspect is the "how" of the possible remedies available to AP. And just because AP comes up with a "policy toward bloggers" doesn't mean it would stand up in court.

Such laudatory news pieces are common after someone dies, and this one is no different. It has some very good information and provides a good look at just how effective Tim Russert was at his job. The piece lacks sources in many of its points although it provides them for others. Its greatest weakness is that it offers a two-dimensional view of Russert. Readers are left without a good view of just who Tim Russert was--both his good qualities as well as some of his failings.

Although this is an opinion piece, and we expect some bias, Parvaz is not persuasive here to anyone but those who agree with her point and don't need any support for it. There is little in the way of facts or other evidence, and the evidence she does provide has many weaknesses (e.g. it comes from hearsay). Some of the information is confusing, such as the reference to "camps" that have varying rules. Do they all have the rules she mentions next? This column would benefit from a reorganization and a clearer statement of points with supporting information that follows.

To read this piece, you would think the "war" in Iraq was over, Iraqis had taken charge, and Americans troops were back home. The writer spins a narrative of two possible decisions (one McCain's and the other Obama's) and purports to show how much better McCain's security choices are. The most serious problem with the piece is that the writer picks only the facts and evidence that supports his point of view and ignores other facts that need to be part of the equation, e.g. ignoring Al Sadr's withdrawal of his "fighters" during the time of the surge. Another problem is that the writer draws conclusions about the success of the surge that isn't shared by all--or even most--other people. The continued daily news belies the writer's ... More »

This is a well-written and mostly balanced article that suggests the campaign will be fierce and uncertain. It is somewhat informative although most people already know something about the topic. The writer is fair to both sides throughout most of the article with little difference in positive language etc. However, two things spoil this balance: the final words are those of a McCain advisor, and the picture included with the text is one of McCain on the campaign trail.

This piece by a widely-known biased commentator is actually fairly balanced and full of support for his claims. It's difficult to rebut the theme of the story because of the wealth of evidence, and the information is important for voters to consider. The message is negative toward McCain but well-supported. The problems are twofold: the messenger here is known to be so biased that no one but Obama supporters are likely to take it seriously; second, the story has complexities that are difficult to communicate in a short TV commentary.

This piece is critical of McCain and thus, shows some bias against him. However, the information provided here is well-thought-out and filled with facts and good reasoning. It is, therefore, quite persuasive. The writer includes good information and context. He also addresses points made by Bush's economic advisor who favors McCain's economic policy of massive corporate tax breaks. Whether you are for or against McCain, this piece should be required reading for every voter.

This story is heavily biased in favor of McCain and reads as though it was copied from a RNC internal memo. There is no context for the information nor does it address possible reader questions or objections. Everything about the campaign is positive here. The only slight negative provided is to point out that the private fundraisers are at odds with McCain's stated policy of transparency. (The writer seems not to know that McCain has stated he would open those fundraisers.) This is supposed to be a news story, but it's actually a mouthpiece for McCain's campaign.

This is an excellent article in terms of information. It is balanced in terms of showing the strengths and weaknesses of McCain. It would be nice if all American voters read this piece before the election. Two minor problems: The audience is British, and although we can read the Guardian here in the U.S., most people don't. And it is very long. The British are used to reading longer pieces and probably have more patience for them. Only the already well-informed Americans, such as readers of "The Economist," read such long pieces here. Unfortunately, it's the less-informed voters who need this information.

There must be some value in letting one campaign have a clear platform for its agenda without any questions, clarifications, or push-back,but I'm not sure what it is. It would be more informative to precede or follow this piece with a similar piece from the Obama campaign. To read this, McCain is a shoe-in in November and if you don't like him, you may as well not vote. The major problem here is that we have no context or other opposing information to help us form any opinions as to whether or not it's at all realistic.

This ad was covered by another media source yesterday, and the differences are pronounced. The WSJ provides us with text from the ad--text that might be persuasive to those who are on the fence about the Iraq war. The writer provides no commentary on the strengths or weaknesses of the ad , nor on its ironies. In an attempt for balance, the writer includes words such as "trying to overcome...." in relation to the public's lack of support for the war and "...shows that he thinks....works to his advantage" in regard to the biographical content. It is clear, though, that the WSJ is deferential to McCain and favors him in the election. But then that should not surprise anyone. We should not expect any serious questioning of McCain's ... More »

This is typical Fox News coverage, which probably should not be considered news at all. However, this was commentary, and in that case, this piece wasn't as bad as the usual Fox presentations. The presenter makes a reasonable point--let's stop the "history" making comments and focus on the issues. However, he makes no mention whatsoever of his station's fatuous and deferential treatment of McCain, who has not been pressed on ANY of his policy issues by anyone at Fox.

This is a piece critical of McCain, but it's a blogger column, and so it doesn't have to be "balanced" in the same way we would expect a news article to be. The piece points out an obvious problem with McCain's message--that his idea of "change" is hypocritical, to say the least. It also points out the potential problem of campaign funding and the fear of the republicans that Obama will be able to outspend McCain. I think we need more of this, frankly, to make people realize McCain's double talk. But these opinion pieces don't usually persuade those who don't already agree with the points.

This is a reasonably balanced story from a source we might expect to be biased toward the left. The information regarding McCain is all negative; however, the negative information is completely factual, using quotes to support the statements. The quotes are not attributed, though. As a whole, this is an informative article.

This piece is a critique of a new McCain TV ad that attempts to explain his preference for war as a way to promote peace. The writer points out a number of flaws in the approach, such as the stark background and the text that consists entirely of war experiences of McCain and his father and grandfather. The writer also suggests the strategy is for the purpose of appealing to Clinton's white male supporters, who may be vulnerable to such ads. The Newsweek article, though, is much too soft on the ad, noticeably omitting some major flaws (e.g. the content that shows McCain as a POW, his father as a soldier, and his grandfather who died the day he returned home from the war juxtaposed with the title "Safe") and revealing his bias ... More »

This is not a balanced piece. Instead of an informative news article with context and not only strengths of the subject (Jindal) but also weaknesses, we have a laudatory and uncritical "news" piece with plenty of "spin." Worse, the writer tries to co-opt Obama's positive characteristics in favor of Jindal although if you read the whole thing, you realize Jindal's philosophy is not at all like Obama's. This is simply one of the least balanced articles I've read about anybody in the campaign, a stretch even for the WSJ. If the WSJ keeps this up, we're all going to gag before the election is over.

This is not journalism at all but rather a platform for McCain's views without any questioning of the fundamental attitudes and policies of McCain. Questions from the students were quite obviously predetermined; students were obviously selected and given the questions. McCain appeared to have make-up on which made him look better than usual. McCain was allowed to talk at length about the danger of war without any presentation of facts or questioning of assumptions. MSNBC and Chris Matthews in particular is known for this kind of bias, and it's interesting that there isn't more outrage to this kind of program being part of the mainstream media.

This is an opinion piece critical of McCain and his Iraq war attitudes as well as his opposition to the updated GI bill. Some quotes are included as evidence for the writer's points. The information regarding McCain's opposition to Webb's GI bill and McCain's own GI bill is fairly complete and objective. The writer also makes some good points, persuasive even for those who don't agree with her point of view, e.g. the cost of the Webb/Hagel bill is about the same as waging the Iraq war for one week.

Very interesting information in this article. It covers McCain's major advisors, where they came from and what they advocate. It is information that should be read by all voters because it gives the reader insight into McCain's probable policies if he should be elected. There are some inaccuracies here, possibly because it's an old article and doesn't reflect some of McCain's recent congressional votes (e.g. I've read that McCain voted against the bill that would have outlawed water boarding; the article states that he believes we should "ban interrogation methods characterized by many as torture"). Generally, an informative article with little criticism, but the informative speaks for itself.

This is an opinion piece and therefore we can't expect objectivity. It's aim is to convince conservatives that McCain is a true conservative and they should not sit out the election. It is not at all persuasive for this or any other audience, though, because of the lack of evidence to back up statements and claims made about McCain as well as about Obama and Clinton. Some amusing contradictions here--the assurance that McCain will succeed in outlawing abortion in one part of the article with the statement that with Obama or Clinton "Our right to made medical decisions will be lost" in another part of the piece. This is not a very effective piece for its audience and certainly not for anyone else.

This story is generally objective and provides some balance in the information. It is informative for its audience, which is the U.K.--not so informative for the U.S. since we've already heard this information a lot. The article does a good job summarizing McCain's campaign points. Facts presented here are, perhaps, a bit off, e.g. that 6 in 10 Americans want to end the war in Iraq. I think that number was from last fall, and currently the number is greater. What's missing in the article is McCain's weaknesses, as opposed to the republican party's weaknesses.Although the writer mentions his age as a possible weakness, he ignores some of the other potential problems with both independents and conservatives. Given the informative ... More »

The problem with this story is that only the headline shows the point of the story. The story itself is unclear in its purpose even though it provides some very good facts on the issue. The real issue here, which is not clear in the article, isn't that McCain did not support an investigation into Katrina (because he did, in fact, support a valid investigation) but rather that he didn't seem to understand the question, or he didn't remember which investigation he voted for and why, or he didn't remember what he did NOT vote for, which was the question being asked. In addition, the article makes no mention of the rather irritated tone McCain uses with the New Orleans reporter. He was obviously offended by the question. The purpose ... More »

This is one of the better information pieces explaining McCain's Detroit/auto manufacturing policies. It is especially good that the article includes McCain's earlier statements on the subject, and I hope we can hear more of this kind of information. If we do, the voters will be able to better judge what McCain really thinks about these issues. Conservative readers will be unhappy with the contrast of McCain's earlier statements with his later ones, but as a whole, this piece is fair to McCain and informative to the public.

Although this story puts McCain in a very negative light in regard to the environment, it is accurate. Facts in the piece are correct, and the topic--McCain's attitude toward environmental spending--is one of the most important ones in this election. It would be more balanced and informative if it included a fuller explanation of why McCain opposed authorizing the money for the cleanup deal that was agreed on by both Florida and the federal government. This article makes McCain look very poor in regard to the environment.

This is an opinion piece and so doesn't have the same requirements for objectivity that a new article would have. It puts McCain in a negative light, but it isn't all that harsh, and what she says about him is demonstrably true. In regards to the other facets of the article, Collins is fairly objective about Obama. However, it seems clear that she supported Clinton in the primaries.

This is cleverly biased journalism, at which the WSJ is an expert. The reader can't argue with the information presented because it's mainly quotations from McCain's speech, and there is no "obvious" bias because there is no editorial comment on McCain's remarks. However, by simply repeating McCain's words, which are heavily biased (which we would expect in this situation) and which consist of claims not proven about Obama, the reader is left with a sense of "truth" in the article. Hearing unanswered charges and claims over and over (think Swift Boat strategy) tends to make people believe those claims are true. This article wears a coat of perceived neutrality, but is deeply non-neutral.

This is what you would expect from a known conservative source. It tried to bash the so-called "liberal" media. You would find the same problem with a liberal bashing a conservative. This piece isn't effective, though, because the facts and quotations used by the author to discredit the writer of the op-ed piece make the latter writer sound rather reasonable. The facts and quotes used here truly highlight some problems with McCain, so the author has to use language such as "sarcastically," "hit piece," etc. to convince the reader that the article in question is "bad" in some way. This piece is not persuasive.