They tend to give a fair amount of hard evidence, although this story falls short of providing a spreadsheet that adds up the claimed $400,000. Great job getting the Republican side of the story, but some claims about Democrats are unsupported. It probably needs more depth on the viewpoint of candidates who are called fake but claim they are not.

This story would be better if it had more depth regarding the election night return documents. If these match the final results then the issue is settled. But this story only mentions that the SoS wants them public, and I don't understand why the reporter couldn't get them for the story.

This article has only the bullet items of the story, lacking depth and initiative. It reports that the GAB will look at the election night returns, but the reporter apparently has not simply asked for those returns (they are public records).

This article barely advances the story, mostly leaving dangling questions. It is not biased toward one side, but is entirely short on substance overall.

This begins almost like a single source press release, but adds a second source to describe the market. Little depth overall, but worthwhile to introduce this business concept.

I like the factual nature of the study. The main thing that knocks this story down a notch is omitting WSJ's viewpoint on if and why they have carried so many climate denier viewpoints.

Good research on very relevant topic, with tons of links to sources. But it still has to be called opinion because it makes predictions. As is often the case with investigative pieces it is short on viewpoints because one side (the Pentagon) apparently has little to say.

The timing and very selective use of evidence in this opinion piece expose it's strongly partisan viewpoint. While it raises a good topic of discussion, the obvious bias and failure to include numeric evidence leave it hardly moving the ball further than previous shallow discussions of senatorial cloture. It does provide some useful context regarding secret holds.

With phrases like "I also hate waste" and "I loathe them all" this is a little too first person. But Rapier is quite an expert on this topic and this article is both fair and informative. Statements from Exxon and others make for very interesting information.

This blog post reads mostly like a news report, with good research and balanced interviews. In one section a previous work by the author is quoted as a first person opinion source, but the followup conveys counter-responses fairly well. His previous blog post on the subject also shows extensive research work.

This historical perspective on today's media fairness issues is a welcome addition. Key claims are not well proven, however: that Olbermann "doesn't actually make things up", with the implication that FNC hosts do.

This has excellent detail, sources and fairness, as election stories go. Sources are carefully attributed throughout, with the exception of the last three paragraphs. For some reason it is unusual for election stories to give the make and model of equipment used, and explain critical details like where vote data is stored and reloaded from. This story has all of that and more.

Although this is single viewpoint reporting, other sources are linked.

This is an unusual level of depth for a story about the mechanics of elections. The many sources and sidebar graphics show a great level of effort. One anonymous source is used in the part about the logic and accuracy test. Much of this information has already appeared as news in the Aspen Times, but this compilation presents the big picture more succinctly.

To get something out of this you have to follow the links. The story introduces the key concepts and tells you where to find out more. In that regard it's ok, but you can be just slightly mislead reading only this story.

The documentation is excellent as usual, and FactCheck remains neutral.