This presents only one side of the issues. There is not even a pretext of balance.

This is mostly balanced, giving opinions from both sides presented in a fair fashion. Notably lacking is any reference to the claim by Israel (and the United States, EU, Canada, UK, Australia, and Japan) that Hamas or its military wing is a terrorist organization backed by Iran. Instead, Hamas is only called a "militant group." The article incorrectly suggests that the truce only began to break down in November, ignoring the N.Y. Times' own reporting of earlier attacks by Hamas (e.g., an article on June 25, "Rockets Hit Israel, Breaking Hamas Truce") and reporting elsewhere (such as Wikipedia's "List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008"). Claiming it started in November actually backs a Hamas position that it ... More »

While most sources say the vast majority of the dead are not civilians, this claims the opposite without supporting evidence. Hamas claims are presented as factual despite a lack of independent sources, while Israeli claims are presented as questionable (using words like "purportedly").

While pushing the idea that Lam might have been fired for performance reasons related to immigration, the article makes no mention of the letter sent by the Justice Department to Sen. Feinstein defending the performance of Lam's office. That letter stated that the office was committing half of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys to prosecute immigration cases. The article also fails to quote Rep. Linda Sanchez, who said the day before this article was written, "[Karl Rove's] statement that Carol Lam 'refused to file immigration cases' - when her office actually had the second highest number of immigration prosecutions in the country - demonstrates almost complete ignorance on the issue." Instead the article claims that statistics show ... More »

This does a good job of reporting on what is going on in Vermont, but it does not give the bigger picture with what is also happening elsewhere. It gives some of the arguments for impeachment and mentions the existence of opposition, but it does not give a full argument on either side.

Lots of opinion about what Romney plans to do backled up by few if any facts.

It does not seem fair to rate this one paragraph summary, so I am not filling in any rating (how well will the NewsTrust software handle that?). The full story is available from AP, for example at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060613/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/us_cuba_4

In interesting interview of one liberal and one conservative blogger, combined with a panel discussion on presidential election prospects for the Democrats. Byron York is identified as being "conservative" but "objective," the latter being a label wityh which many would disagree. York's response had nothing to do with the question that was asked, and Russert did not call him on it. Alter's claim that violence in Iraq might now decrease also was not countered. I was left wondering whether Russert was bothering to even listen to the answers, or if we he was just sticking to his scripted questions. An interesting contrast when Russert apparently tried to downplay Busby's success by noting that she got 45% in a district in which ... More »

The article presents the bloggers in a fairly good light, but it also takes some hits at them. For example, there is the unanswered, unsourced, and unsupported claim that the liberal bloggers could somehow hurt Democrats' chances at winning the election. Also, the article mentions Boxer's backing away from impeachment, but it fails to say anything about the very cool reception she got as a result.

This is the usual misleading twisting of facts to create uncertainty over global warming where there is none in the scientific community. I give this low review not because I disagree with George Will (which I do), but because he makes no attempt to rely on experts and because of his use of ridicule to replace facts.

A not-so-random selection of bloggers is no substitute for a scientific public opinion poll. Maybe this reflects the reality of Iraq, or maybe the situation is much better or much worse. There is no way to tell from this article. It is an interesting presentation of viewpoints, but no more.

Hersh provides some interesting analysis, but there is nothing really new here.

Fact check: the article says the poverty level for a family of four is $16700. The Census Bureau for 2005 says it is $19806 for a family of four that includes two children and higher for other arrangements of four people. Beyond that, this is a rambling rant. It probably has plenty of anger to appeal to most anyone, but there is no there there.

AP largely worked an AI press release into an article. There is no opposing viewpoint presented.

The article clearly documents misleading ads favoring Bilbray. On the other hand, in calling a pro-Busby ad hypocritical, it claims that Bilbray's vote was not key because the measure passed "quite comfortably." In actuality, the measure received support of only 50.8% of the House in the vote. The pro-Busby ad is criticized because most Democrats in Congress opposed the bill, but Democrats in this super-conservative district are more likely to have supported it. More germain to whether the ad is hypocritical is whether Busby supported the bill, but her position is not brought up in the factcheck article.

The article goes out of its way to give benefit of doubt to Bilbray, such as saying the Bilbray ad "stetches the truth" on a point where factcheck shows that the ad is provably false. The article provides even more extreme estimates than the "up to 30 million" estimate in the Bilbray ad, but it gives no voice to those who come up with lower estimages. Of course, since the ad says, "up to," there is no too say it is inaccurate for being too high.

This is an overly cutesy article that starts from the assumption that Gore had been permanently bannished to oblivion. While it could be seen as faintly pro-Gore when it concludes that the assumption was false, its disrespectful approach is at best a left-handed compliment. Along the way, it finds the opportunity here and there to bash Hillary. Where the article shines is in the interview with Gore itself.

Story includes a discredited accusation against Busby including an out-of-context quote without providing any defense against it other than saying that the ad was pulled. An accusation against Bilbray is also included without giving much of his side of the story.

Effectively an op-ed by Albright disguised as a news story about Albright. No alternative viewpoint is presented.

An op-ed piece that is up front with having a strong conservative viewpoint. Facts that are included are not sourced but appear to largely be true statements. Conclusions follow logically from the selected facts, and the opinion seems to reflect those of many conservatives.

There probably is a very interesting story to how Leopold got this wrong, but Kurtz did not find it. He instead relies heavily on character assassination and wanders away from the real story. The Klein story similarly bashes consultants without giving any opposing viewpoint.

The story balances Iranian denials with international condemnation, mixed with facts about the proposed law.

While called an "interview with Judith Miller," this is mostly a long narrative by Miller with a few other things thrown in. Being presented as a narrative rather than an interview, there is no questioning of anything Miller says. I would have liked to ask, for example, how she could be surprised that al Qaeda would attack in the US when she knew they had tried bombing the WTC before and that they had been caught bringing explosives into the country to bomb LAX. I am always skeptical of the newsworthiness when reporters interview reporters, but Miller definitely has become part of this story. Her perspective is interesting, but it has its own bias.

This story present just one aspect of a much larger story on Dubai Ports World, but it presents it well. Missing is any response that DPW claims to not apply the boycott to trade that does not go into Dubai (but was that information available at the time of this report?).