This is an example of excellent journalism with sufficient background and sourcing to allow the reader to become informed on the state of the road infrastucture, but some of the causes as well.

This is a nice example of effective journalism. It avoids partisanship for the most part and offers important information about the scope of the meetings and the ultimate result. Its biggest failing is in its inclusion of one paragraph too many at the end of the article with an meaningless comment from the NRDC.

Clearly a biased piece. The headline and sub-headline both provide the conclusion the LA Times want to reach. Note that the denial by Sunnunu is not mentioned until the sixth paragraph. The only supporting documentation is a copy of minutes with a one sentence statement, no check records, no follow up minutes with further information about his progress, etc.

The author states a premise in the first paragraph about political discourse being unmoored from rational debate and then spends the remainder of the article proving the premis through his own comments. I fail to see how selective quoting combined with immediate dismissiveness of the source with phrases such as "dishonesty", "cluelessness", "Oh, the humanity" qualifies as good journalism. The author makes some interesting observations about sentencing and the legal process that are helpful. Nonetheless, this is an opinion piece and its biases are clear. It doesn't offer any solid discussion on the arguments for or against a pardon which would have made it a good piece of journalism.

This story starts out well raising the question of the effectiveness of the coverage of the presidential candidates. It then somehow shifts gears into a biased (op-ed) assessment of two incidents. At this point it deteriorates into a one-sided commentary on the fact that Al Uthman believes that the Hydrocarbon Law in Iraq and the importation of pharmaceuticals are examples of government sell-outs. There is no counterbalance, no alternate perspectives, just his opinion. His treatment is no less hysterical and shallow than that which he complains about in the premise to the article. Poor journalism.

This "journalism" is nothing more than Greenwald's leftist rantings. Most interesting is that in all of his wrath for the "right wing noise machine" he never asks the key question which is, if Valerie Plame was covert, then why isn't Fitzgerald prosecuting Richard Armitage? Armtiage has said he was the original source of the leak. But that would require Greenwald to actually do something other than complain about the right.

This story is well written and includes substantial comment from both sides of the story. It does a good job of stating the facts along with substantiating background information.

The initial sentence bears some interest. The article could have been a serious exploration of the evolving Washington culture. However Mr. Packer descends into yet another ranting diatribe on the horrors of the Bush administration with no justification other than those from the leftist echo chamber. Numerous assertions without a shred of support, clearly biased perspectives, and a highly partisan view do not make for quality journalism.

My criticism of this story is that after 8 paragraphs of criticism the articl only has one paragraph in response from the Army Corps. Also, the primary source has an obvious conflict of interest as he is serving as an expert witness in a multi-billion dollar lawsuit. This article may call into question the work done, but it clearly does not present a balance of viewpoints. Ideally, the article should have included a point by point refutation of the charges.

The original story may be good, but this reference of the original through Firedoglake is nothing more than warmed over blog rhetoric.

Insightful article about the pressures some Republicans face due to the war. It avoids any position relative to the Iraq war and stays focused on the main theme.