We need more coverage like this, comparing how the MSM covers important national stories.

Yes. It is fairly careful with attributions, and provided some fact-checking. There is a fine line between serving as a stenographer for a source, and providing a balanced evaluation of the source's comments.

This is quality journalism because it is well-researched, by a blogger known for her investigative reporting (she received the prestigious Hillman Award for her investigative work.)

Greenwald dissects the Cramer vs. Stewart interview as an object lesson in substandard but high profile journalism. In so doing, he is exploring the notion of quality journalism and how it is-- or is not-- practiced.

This blog addresses the way journalism is being practiced inside the beltway. Instead of retaining independent judgment about their sources, too many journalists are becoming mere mouthpieces for insiders.

In this special analysis Siun, who specializes in Middle East news, brings together reports from 3 independent sources to focus on a common issue that seldom surfaces in the mainstream coverage of Israel's invasion of Gaza.

The author fails to note that there is a similar website at change.org that has similar aspirations, but is not directly connected to the Obama transition. Its method of gathering ideas is a little different. Right now, Change.org is collecting ideas, arranged in 29 "causes." Next month, it will hold a run-off among the top 3 ideas in each cause, concluding just before Obama's inauguration.

This is the kind of Hot Lead that is irresistible. Kudos to Reuters for actually obtaining a copy of the indictment, and for noting that the indictment has not yet "been seen by a judge, who could dismiss it.." From a journalistic point of view, the author(s) need to be more clear about the role of a judge in "seeing" the indictment, and in evaluating the putative merit of the case against the high profile targets, Cheney and Gonzales. Journalistically, it is important to "consider the source," and Reuters should tell its readers more about county DA Guerra, who has a controversial history.

This is good journalism because it presents the back-story that the headlines overlook: two new bills that deal more directly with the causes and issues involved in the "Bail-out." While all eyes are focused today on the Senate, two competing but incomplete progressive responses to the financial crisis are being crafted in the house. Ian Welsh, who has been writing a series of blogs on the Bail-out for Firedoglake, gives us an update on efforts to address the real problems in a way that bails out Main Street rather than Wall Street.

This editorial scrutinizes President Bush's sweeping claims about FISA and places them in a better context. Unfortunately, the track record of the NYT suggests that it is more trustworthy when it disagrees with national policy than when it agrees. And as an editorial, we do not expect it to be well-sourced-- we must rely instead on our assessment of its use of sources. Nevertheless, it is good to see an MSM assessment that does not merely echo the spin of the establishment, and actually attempts to render independent judgment in evaluating White House claims. In this case, I tip my hat to the NYT

This article provides an excellent look at the Democratic ground game in historical perspective. It shows Obama as seizing Howard Dean's 50 state strategy, and operationalizing it more effectively than Dean ever did. I became politically engaged because of Dean's candidacy in 2003, and my perception is that Obama "gets it," but Hillary hasn't, and doesn't, and its making a difference in the voting booth.

This is a good article for people who want to think long range about U.S. interests and prospects. Africa has been one of the most trouble-filled places in the world in recent years, even though the Middle East gets more press attention from American media. Our next president will need to devote much attention to African affairs.

This is an extremely important subject. Ultimately, democracy depends on the free flow of information. Some of the issues here are subtle, and defy simple soundbites.

This is another "canary in the coalmine" story that we (the public) need to pay attention to!

It is good to see an interview with a Senator who really knows his subject, and who does more than spout sound bites. In this context, good journalism consists in asking good questions. The questions allowed Sen. Feingold to challenge conventional thinking on a number of aspects of FISA.

This is a "Special Comment," and hence an opinion piece. It does not pretend to be neutral. Rather, it is a passionate piece of advocacy journalism. However, this does not make it "bad" journalism, because this comment also has much penetrating insight. And good journalism involves helping us understand the significance of the news, and in this, Olberman's Comment excels.

This disappointing opinion piece is the standard Bush-Cheney party line. It praises the Senate Judiciary Committee bill that grants amnesty to Telcoms for breaking the law, and scarcely replies at all to critics of the SJC bill. As one of the new AG's first public opinion statements, it is a depressing piece of administration boilerplate.

This is a lengthy and thorough account of the juridicial aspects of the actions by various courts in connection with the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore in 2000. It is a somewhat one-sided presentation, but with plenty of checkable details in what was possibly the worst Supreme Court decision of the century.

The author is a known and respected voice. However, the story contains no links to sources, and compares only two of the Democratic presidential candidates, thereby leaving out a great deal of context. I have great respect for Reich, and have no doubt that his analysis is correct, but it falls short of standards of good journalism. Of course, Reich is here writing an opinion piece, not as a reporter.

Goodman's essay is like an op-ed with footnotes. She definitely portrays a point of view, but sources her POV with interview information from several sources. She does not try to be neutral. For example, she does not ask the Democrats who controlled the choice of spokesperson what on earth they were thinking by this choice, and she does not ask those leaders how they defend the Party against this appearance of tolerating torture. But it exposes a tawdry choice for what it was.

The lawyer known as "Looseheadprop" (a rugby term) provides here a first-hand account of Mario Cuomo's speech on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving to 2,000 of the most influential lawyers in NYC. His speech apparently received little or no press coverage. Nevertheless, it was an important speech on accountability and leadership to an important audience.

Since this story consists of an interview with an author, it suffers from the usual constraints of the genre. Although the story does include a somewhat lengthy quote from Dick Cheney 15 years ago, no other sources are provided. Thus, the orientation of the story is somewhat one-sided, but nevertheless informative, and useful to anyone interested in the subject, because it will make it easier to decide whether or not to buy the book.

This story is more than a news story: it is a combination of news about an impasse, and a proposal for a way to break the impasse.

This is a thoroughly sourced article that gets beyond the simplistic "Left vs. Right again" that is so typical of the mainstream media.

This report is good journalism because it digs up some timely, relevant facts about a critical debate in Congress.

Neiwert, who has been investigating "Rathergate" for years, provides an abundance of sources to debunk a Washington Post editorial by Charles Lane. It appears that Lane did not do the kind of journalistic homework one would expect from someone in his position.

The writer is clearly hostile.

The story raises important issues from the author's standpoint as ombudsman, i.e., how much can the author assume that his/her readers know? However, his conclusions give too much away (e.g., failing to acknowledge sources), and do not give enough weight to the criticisms about sourcing and verification.

This writer seems to have "seen" very selectively at YearlyKos, and has forgotten the influence of Arianna Huffington's blog, Digby, the women who run FireDogLake, the women of DailyKos, and many others. She has forgotten the formative influence of the Wonkette, the original of whom is now on the staff of the Washington Post. Important information about the cited study is lacking. How representative is it? Is it comparing apples to apples, or is it treating dozens of small, male-driven blogs on the same footing with large, female-driven blogs?