no it is not good journalism. poorly sourced (not sourced at all in fact). poorly thought-out. no new ideas and a lot of poorly recycled societal memes.

I initially got steamed at the content of this article, then read it more closely. under closer reading it appears to be highly anecdotal and unnecessarily unflamatory. the implication is that intolerance towards muslims is on the rise. which it may well be. but quoting a few nutcases in a very small handful of local disputes only serves to make the nutcases seem much more powerful than they are, and the rest of us hysterical about the loss of traditional american acceptance of difference. as I said: maybe the trend is actually happening. but one can't tell from articles like this.

Heartbreaking. Just describing what it's like to be in a city under attack. Appeared dispassionate. Just description. Vivid. "we havent seen the soliders. we only saw the tanks and the bulldozers".

So the issues here are in the details. If we are going to impose some accountability for the last eight years (and I personally believe we must), making it work is going to be all about exactly how a commission is structured, what its mandate is, and what the results are expected to be. Yammering about "a host of issues ranging from Guantanamo, to torture..." isn't helpful. I would appreciate a carefully thought-out article about how we can, within the constitution, but also within what is practical, achieve some justice for the last eight years. This article isnt it.

This is a summary of political moves to create a cease-fire, interspersed with concerns of two groups (Red Cross and an apparent coalition of Israeli human rights groups) about the situation in Gaza. The fact that 1000 people have been kiled is mentioned once. I don't really know what the point of the article is. Perhaps I'm just too emotional about the subject this morning...

Not sure what to think. Seems like a relatively shallow rehash of Bush foreign policy, about which it is hard, of course, to be objective. But not impossible, and this article didn't seem to really attempt to be objective I dont think.

Pretty decent article. Good intro to the "who is Barak anyway" notion. Seemed realtively balanced to me: as a Obama fan I could disagree with the conclusions, but I understand the argument, which is put reasonably clearly. Of course, one of the argument's main contentions - that Obama is "policy lite" - is unsourced and unsupported, which is typical in these kind of pieces - it just picks up the meme and runs with it, without, say, going to the Obama website and taking quotes from the Iraq policy and running them next to quotes from the opposing Hillary policy. Cant imagine why the author wouldnt do that...

Useful article, interesting subject, havent seen covered elsewhere. Could use more context - what's the size of the "drug problem" now vs 20 or 30 years ago? The article is really about opposing political points of view, not the "drug problem" itself or how to solve it (should it still exist...)

This, in my mind, is a classic "he said, she said" article, which does very little reporting of facts on the ground. We basically learn that some people think the surge is "working", and some don't. Which we already knew. What we don't have enough of, and definitely dont get from this article, is new information.

Interesting. Mostly a puff piece about Bush's reception in Africa, with some amusing stuff about Obama thrown in. And then there's the substance of Bush's remarks about his Aid's initiative. His assertions about the program are quoted, but there is nothing from the wide ranging analyses that strongly suggest that abstinence programs have no effect whatsoever. In my mind this is a perfect example of "soft bias" - the President makes essentially outrageous, at best unproven assertions which are described, maybe, as "controversial", with no balancing quotes, research or opinion. Bah.

Well jeez - I would have like to know what actually is in the proposed bill, you know, for a start. Seems like an interesting subject, skimpily covered in this article.

Seems like a good, crisp story. Quotes from both sides, background from both sides. Journalism!

New at this, so not sure how to judge if it's good journalism. It's an interesting story, informative in giving a simple overview of health care reforms. Seems balanced, dinging both Clinton and the Repub congress for early 90's failures. Given the incredible complexity of the health system issues, it seems a good story.

this strikes me as a classic "weekly mag" article: it's overly general, poorly sourced ("say law pundits in several countries") and contains opinion disguised as fact. Is there really an issue here (Islam on the rise, religious tensions in Europe)? Could be. The article makes a kind of case with a few examples and some unsourced opinions. But one could easily write the opposite case by quoting some opposing examples and opposing opinions.