Matt Ford

Member (since February 2011)
Help

About Matt Help
Last Visit: Mar 3, 2011 - 12:03 PM PST
Last Edit: Feb 3, 2011 - 4:06 PM PST

This profile can be seen by everyone, including search engines. Help
| Network |

Activity

Show all | Reviews | Posts | Starred | Comments
Matt reviewed this story - Mar 13, 2011
Matt's Rating
3.7

This is good journalism because it's a good topic. Outsourcing has been a talking point for politicians, businesspeople and consumers for years now, and it would be interesting if the trend to produce overseas is being reversed. That said, I think the story is a bit overly optimistic. GM's and NovaSom's actions do not indicate a national trend. That said, I did not particularly enjoy this story, nor would I recommend it. See my comments.

I think my 3.5 rating is a bit high -- the story is decent and factual and fair, but I think it's kind of small-minded and, frankly, not that well written. I struggled to stay focused after the first graf -- not a strong lede, and it took several paragraphs (seven, actually) to get anyone's voice in there besides the writer's. I also think that the argument the author makes -- essentially, the changing economy is causing businesses to bring production back to the USA -- is kind of ... More »

See Full Review » (12 answers)
NT Rating: 3.9 | See All NT Reviews »
Matt reviewed this story - Mar 13, 2011
Matt's Rating
3.3

This is a summary of a arguments made in the state legislature, which is relevant and of interest to people in the state. I like how many perspectives are included -- pro-incinerator, free-market environmentalists and others. But the story is pretty average in terms of writing quality. The reporting is there, so I guess it can be considered "good journalism." I have no idea why I have this story rated as a 3.3. I called it "incomplete" and "poorly written," yet Newstrust has it as a 3.3. Hmm.

I have never heard of the Maryland reporter, but the site seems legitimate on first glance.. But I indicated I didn't trust the site. Not because I think they're lying, just that I've never heard of the Md. Reporter in my life and I'm a journalism major at UMD.... I think the arguments are kind of out of order. The incinerator argument is not usually a mainstream argument -- environmentalists have been denigrating that strategy for decades -- so to give it so much coverage in the ... More »

See Full Review » (12 answers)
NT Rating: 3.2 | See All NT Reviews »
Matt reviewed this story - Mar 8, 2011
Matt's Rating
3.8

This is good journalism for several reasons. First, it takes scientific studies and processes that may be difficult to understand and explains them. Second, it uses several sources. Third, it discusses a local story that is relevant to anyone who lives in Baltimore. Lastly, it is enterprising, because it goes in-depth with addiction research and shows how new research is different, and how it will add to the discussion about addiction. I'm not in love with the writing of this story, but the content makes it worth it.

The story is fair, relatively compelling and balanced. I really liked seeing the maps of crime and race at the bottom of the page, because the story mentions them very early on. It's nice to give the reader the pictures in addition to the information. I also liked, from a research standpoint, getting the methodology of the studies in the story. I wouldn't recommend this story, necessarily, because it's just not that well-written. The paragraphs are often obscenely long for the web ... More »

See Full Review » (12 answers)
NT Rating: 3.8 | See All NT Reviews »
Matt reviewed this story - Mar 3, 2011
Matt's Rating
3.8

I think this is good journalism because the objective nature of the story. It includes quotations from the protest group, the Supreme Court decision, the father of Matthew Snyder, and has examples of signs used by the protesters. The story omits one key detail -- that Matthew Snyder was not a homosexual -- but it gives a fair voice to all parties involved while, at the same time, breaking a news item. This is a good piece. I wouldn't recommend this story, though. I don't think it's incredibly written and it isn't quite as good as some of the other stories I've read about this issue. I didn't love the lede. I think it's missing a comma, and maybe it's just a computer formatting thing, but I don't get who Gigi Barnett is..?

See Full Review » (9 answers)
NT Rating: 3.9 | See All NT Reviews »
Matt reviewed this story - Feb 10, 2011
Matt's Rating
4.0

This is an editorial -- it will, by definition, be biased. But the points made by the author are factual, fair, and valid. Climate change is a very serious issue and the fact that the new chair of the energy committee in the House may not even hold climate change hearings is quite alarming.

See Full Review » (4 answers)
NT Rating: 3.6 | See All NT Reviews »
Matt reviewed this story - Feb 8, 2011
Matt's Rating
2.0
See Full Review » (3 answers)
NT Rating: 2.3 | See All NT Reviews »
Matt reviewed this story - Feb 8, 2011
Matt's Rating
4.0

It is a good opinion piece that feels honest and totally factual. It does, as a disclaimer, validate my opinion about climate change, but the story is factual and realistic.

See Full Review » (4 answers)
NT Rating: 4.0 | See All NT Reviews »
Matt reviewed this story - Feb 3, 2011
Matt's Rating
4.0

I found this story to be well-sourced. It had non-partisan and partisan analysis of the Governor's agenda in the State of the State coming up. I thought the writing was clear and concise and had an objective tone. A fair and fairly interesting read.

See Full Review » (4 answers)
NT Rating: 3.5 | See All NT Reviews »
(Beta)

Levels & Stats

Member LevelHelp
2.1 avg.
2.1 avg.
Activity
2.0 avg.
Experience
1.0 avg.
Ratings
4.0 avg.
Transparency
1.0 avg.
Validation
2.0 avg.

StatsHelp
Reviews
8
Answers
50
Comments
0
Ratings Received
3
Number of Raters
1
Ratings Given
0

Member Ratings

Ratings received by Matt (3) Help

4 out of 5 rating - click to see review from Gin Ferrara | 03/09/2011


Ratings given by Matt Help

No ratings given yet.