This article is very well written. The lead is the best of the three i've read today. It kept my attention and has many details that make it very well sourced.

It is quality Journalism because it has a great lead and keeps the reader interested. It is just seems very biased at times.

It's quality journalism in the fact that it is accurate and fair. However, the lead is eye-catching but short and weak and it was a struggle to keep my attention to it. A great story would keep me reading, not begging for the end. Even the photograph doesn't help the story.

It's easy to read, catches the reader's attention right away and has multiple sources so yes, I would say it's quality Journalism. I also like how it referenced the election, saying that their bailout ideas would be told to both campaigns, so it really doesn't matter who wins.

It doesn't introduce any new ideas or have any back up to what it's saying. There's one graph with information but it really doesn't tell the reader much. It is very biased and didn't engage the reader.

Yes, it's quality journalism because it's different. It got my attention. Everyone is freaking out over the economy but how many of them have actually thought of how it is affecting our older citizens? Good journalism makes you think and this article did that for me.

It's very informative and makes me think about the problems in society. The frame is kind of depressing though. For a younger person, like myself, the wording is kind of blah and doesn't really keep you interested though.

It's from the AP so I would assume that the article is trustworthy. It doesn't give enough information though. It's stuff I already knew, as a semi-informed reader.