I am impressed by the detailed research, but am not sure I agree with every last one of the conclusions PolitiFact came to based on that research.

Not good. FactCheck is playing semantic games with the Medicare issue. If, in 10 years or so, all those turning 65 will have to use vouchers to purchase private insurance, there is no way you can call that Medicare. Right now, basic Medicare has no private component. Right now Medicare does not require the elderly to go shopping for insurance. No matter how Jackson spins this, Sen Wyden (D)'s working with the Republicans doesn't make the plan Medicare. Every single Democrat could agree with the Republicans and it would still be the end of Medicare. Yes, today's elderly will continue to be covered by traditional basic Medicare but refusing it to the next generation is the end of Medicare. Call it what you want, but ... More »

Very important topic, but sounds as though it's based on a press release and a couple of phone calls. Europe and specifically Germany seem to provide "context" but the real context--how much of Britain's energy will be replaced, will there be cost savings and when--is missing. Also would have been nice to see a table of countries showing the number of windfarms built/planned.

What kind of journalism is it when you handle a scary topic in an incomprehensible manner?

This is a press release by the Times about the Times. As gossip comes in from other publications we will get a fuller picture. I thought "he steered The Times through a period of journalistic distinction" was kind of tacky for the Times to say about itself in general, but when you add to the mix things like the Judith Miller debacles, it's downright hilarious.

1. how does the UNFUNDED Medicare Part D add "$400 billion to the deficit in the first 10 years, and trillions more in the decades after that." 2. What is the process by which "extending the upper-income cuts now . . . all but foreclosed the possibility of rates being raised in two years. Tax cuts today. Tax cuts tomorrow. Tax cuts forever." Clever wording but I 'd like to know how he got there. Even if you are writing opinion, I think there's an obligation to back it up with some facts.

I guess it's good journalism in the sense that it seems to be an accurate report of what people said, but I would like to see the writer questioning some of the responses: for instance, the Honeywell guy's "we've already started adding" jobs at home "at the same time that we're growing overseas." #1 is he talking about Honeywell or the U.S.? #2 make him prove the connection.

Seems evasive to me.

he analyzes the hell out of the material, is fair in the sense that he's not making anything up or relying on innuendo or rabble rousing. No phoney balancing.

In a "news analysis" by WP staffers, the use of words like "chestnut" and "specter" shows too much bias.The analysis itself concludes that the Dems are inventing a problem for political purposes, which is perfectly okay for an analysis to do, but according to paragraph 10, 13 Republican Senate candidates have expressed support for privatization. What percentage of the field at the time of the analysis did those 13 represent? In our political culture, a person or a proposition is in play if it receives as little as 15 percent support.

Even though different views are covered, it's hard to say this is a balanced story when the lead portrays Torry Hansen as an innocent, betrayed. That is by no means clear at this stage of the incident's unfolding.

sounds like a press release, or a rehash thereof--no one speaks in full paragraphs. On the other hand, it's a business publication and part of its role is to report that people have been appointed to something or other.

short and to the point. It's the kind of thing that really doesn't seem to need to cite experts or sources since it *sounds* as though the writer went through the paces, but that's not clear.

The quality of the comments is just amazing--is this because it's Seattle or it it something about the article itself that brought out the best in the readers?

clear, nicely written, important BUT did the writer not at least question whether the resulting fuel might not give off something like second-hand smoke?

Since there's no labels over the columns of boxes, I can't tell if ratings get more or less approving from left to right, so I'm doing this in words. In an attempt to appear balanced, the author comes off as schizoid. And he makes it sound as though Maddow, rather than he himself, claims that providing healthcare at free clinics is "blatant exploitation of the poor."

Not the very highest quality, I don't think, since only the upside of serving is covered. There could be a downside for people who give but don't get replenished, and for people who should be getting their ego jollies elsewhere. Maybe there's no research in these areas; is there some responsible journalism way to indicate "we think there may be some downsides, but we have no research on it"?.

I used to trust the L.A. Times, but this is not particularly good journalism. What local governments used zoning and permitting to pressure trailer residents? How way May 30 arrived at? What kind of affordable alternate housing is available? How accurate was the "suspicion" that "some people had grown comfortable in their free digs." If there was no data available on how many people could and could not afford to move, the article should have said so. I recommend the story because the topic is important, not because it's done well.

No--nowhere near enough sourcing, nowhere near enough naming of names, nothing the reader can double check--who the hell was the 24-year-old from a Republican family who forgot to renew the stock market lease? I'd definitely recommend this, but with a ton of warnings.

An enormous amount of the bloodshed of the last century was backed by claims of ancient histories and deep resentment about not being given due respect, to the point that the belligerents could feel land grabs, genocides, ethnic cleansings, etc., were justified. Would have been nice if he'd offered some specific advice, but maybe a warning is a good start. I hope someone follows up on this with decent sourcing.

Sorry excuse for journalism. I believe it, of course, because this is the sort of thing that goes on all the time, but I have to condemn it for lack of sources. I'm also not sure what it was doing on NewsTrust, since it's just an abridged version of a story available only in print.

It's good journalism of the fact-check mode. In a quick read, I didn't see any opinions from, or even list of, groups referenced thus: "made available to academic and scientific groups in April 2007 as was planned from the inception of the study." If no groups asked for the data, or received it but didn't respond, that should have been noted.

The data is important, but it's not good journalism because there's not enough data. Needs maybe a sentence on why the problem wound up in congress and maybe a sentence or so on why 18,000 didn't show up (I can think of one perfectly innocent reason). Also, can we accept it as good journalism when a quote like this is let stand without question or explanation? "It could have been ballot design,'' Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Michigan, said of the 18,000 ballots that showed no vote in the congressional race. "But the simple fact is Mr. Buchanan did win the election and will remain as a member of the Congress. ... The result, I believe, is without question.'' Not my ellipsis and not a rhetorical question.

The emotion and the attitude drown out the data and the analysis. Would have been more informative--and more powerful--with fewer and calmer words.

When the trillions in the headline turned out to be Zimbabwean dollars worth $272,360 on the black market, how much of the rest of the report is also misleading?

Listed as a news report, but contains more attitude than information. Not rhetorical: how to evaluate writing that provides no background on a technical topic where it's clear that the site is specialized. I read this thing hoping for a little education and got none at all, but maybe this site is not interested in an uneducated audience. In which case, is this kind of specialized article appropriate for such a diverse group as NewsTrust? (Or am I the only ignoramus in the gang?)

Not sure if a story can be considered fair if its main example, BitTorrent v Comcast, is incomprehensible. Even the link to the item about BitTorrent's being throttled is not clear on what it is that BitTorrent does.

Good journalism: well-sourced, temperate tone, clear as a bell, no wasted words.

Sourcing doesn't matter here, and I'm not even sure it's good journalism, but as an analysis of journalism it's required reading, especially for the notion that we deal with the effects of power, but not with how power works.

"Not even the most stalwart Bush adversaries backed an immediate troop withdrawal." Really? None? Then blaming the media for the Straw Man tactics used by presidents in *speeches.* And they call themselves Scientific.

Terrifically important topic, but not really good journalism. Journalism is supposed to be quick, but this doesn't get to the gist until paragraph 7 (of 17) and then the reader has to go back to try to put the beginning into some kind of context, only to realize the beginning really does assume prior knowledge of the history and the jargon of the issue. Journalism falls down on the job when it doesn't edit academics.

"Obama spokesman Bill Burton responded in a statement that the two networks said it would be impossible to exclude Florida TV sets from a national ad." But surely not impossible to buy 49 states--just more expensive. I am beginning to consider easily checked but unchecked statements not journalism at all, just stenography.

Trying to figure out why this smacks of having been written to fill space. Even if U.S. investors are scouring Europe for ideas, the writer does nothing to prove the contention that the U.S. is threatening to take the lead away from Europe. I'm not sure how seriously to take quotes from people who would like the reader to invest in *them.* All the highly touted green building that supposedly is going on over here doesn't come close to where Europe was 15 years ago, so I find it hard to believe we're gonna overtake anyone.

I thought it was not good journalism--badly organized, badly written--but it's a campaign diary. Is a campaign diary supposed to be good journalism? Maybe a smattering of ideas, facts, what have yous is enough as long as it's on the objective side.

Is "he said, she said" good journalism? I don't think so, when with a little effort the article could have indicated whether McCain's claim that raising taxes has always lowered revenue is true or not. Also should have noted that the Confederate flag is the flag of Slavery and Secession, the flag of people who don't want to be citizens of the United States.

Seems to be data in a vacuum, but okay journalism if it was reported on a really tight deadline. If not, the item would benefit from comparing Chinese casualties per X miners with Polish, Indian and U.S. figures, which should be available online, along with the identity of the safest country. This data would add maybe a sentence to the item.