It is good journalism because it presents both sides of the debate. It isn't excellent journalism because it starts out framing the subject as an attack on GOP. However, I try to imagine myself on the other side of the debate and how I would react to the article. All in all I would probably view it as bad news; but I would have no argument against its accuracy.

Even though this falls in the category of opinion I can positively accept it as quality journalism because it uses just enough facts to make it informative. The author's ability to weave apt criticism into fantastic writing makes her one of the greatest columnists of our time in my opinion.

Inasmuch as this is an opinion piece and has no sources except the writer it isn't good journalism if one considers journalism's job to be to inform. The writer's opinion is probably valid and does serve to bring a much needed perspective to our attention; but lack of sources reduces its use as a source of information.

This is good journalism for all the criteria I rated it "4". The only reason I rated "context" down was the complexities of the story are beyond what a short, succinct article could include. A complete study is possible by accessing many more articles and sources.

It is good journalism because it is heavy on quotations from sources to support a theme. While the sources and their opinions seem credible some historical perspective might be in order. Has any of these tactics been tried to good effect?

This lengthy analysis of the situation regarding our relationship with Iran is of the utmost importance to Americans as they asses the administration's dealing with Iran. It is my experience that most people who have opinions for or against the Iranian government should read more articles like this to get a better context for arguing one way or the other. I believe this is a well balanced article which could give support for either side of the argument about whether to take military action in Iran. From my perspective it supports a non-military approach; but I can believe that reasonable people with a different opinion could take information from the article to support them.

I graded this down because I definitely can understand a pro-McCain stance on this one. I can see why McCain, with his history of bravery, would say why it isn’t important for the troops to come home. He expects the troops to stay over there until “the job is done”. So, from his perspective he is absolutely correct to demand a high level of courage and commitment not worrying about when you come home but to stay and do your duty. If I had had this kind of commitment when I was in the military my years would have counted for something. All that being said when you discount the legitimacy of this invasion and occupation all this bravado is for naught. If the invasion and occupation were for a just cause then I could accept the ... More »

Trying to think like a McCain supporter I am challenged to find any fault with this article. Way back when he made his first bid for nomination by the Republican party I believed in the man and wasn’t put off by an article in a well known magazine that detailed the warts and all of McCain’s personality. This article seems to advance the idea that McCain is guilty of all kinds of shenanigans. Then it presents a modicum of objectivity by asking whether McCain is a bad guy or a good guy. That’s the only way I could grade it as high as I did on fairness. The author leaves it up to the reader to make the judgment.

After reading the first few links that might have led to sources and reading the list of potential running mates I see a decided lack of sources for any on that list. The only saving quality for this article is its highlighting the fact that any guesses of who might be Obama's pick are pure conjecture.

The only aspect of the interview that the article doesn't mention is McCain's inconsistency in saying he "supported every investigation" into the government's role regarding the hurricane, and his saying "I also voted against one of the bills that came down that was loaded with pork barrel projects that had nothing to do with New Orleans too. It had billions for projects and programs that had nothing to do with the recovery of the city of New Orleans."

Although there are elements of opinion in this piece I consider it a good example of writing that helps us understand some of the background behind Reverend Wright's speech.

The only reason I graded this story down on "context" was it's part of the controversy over using potential food for biomass fed fuel plants. It could have drawn a contrast from food using plants by emphasizing the source of the biomass.

Rating the "sources" criterion low is justified by the ambiguous statement, “McCain continues to run a statistical dead-heat with both contenders for the Democratic nomination”. Does this mean that each of the two Democratic contenders rate behind McCain in each of two hypothetical two-way races? Or does it mean that the percentages for each candidate are split up in a three-way race? In the latter, it might be argued that the vast majority prefer one or the other Democratic candidate to McCain. If the former, then each of them have a problem. However, when one or the other is picked, then the picture could change remarkably. This year’s New Hampshire primary was an excellent example of how polls can be misleading leading ... More »

I don't know about the "big picture" regarding this article. It surely gives us a larger context than just the headlines about the woman calling Hillary a monster and then leaving the Obama campaign. I believe that any article that is written from the perspective of a specific segment of society inevitable leaves out the perspectives of the rest of us. To be fair I don't think this or any other woman writing about "women's issues" presumes to speak for all women and certainly alternative views from other women fuel a healthy debate. Finaly I am glad I read this for the chance to have a better understanding of why Ms. Power made the comment that drew so much attention.

I would add one great quality to this article: it reveals an important detail to the presidential election cycle. The military men show a great deal of integrity by witholding their endorsements for the very good reasons they cite. It is intirely beveilable that these military leaders would do this while offering advice to the candidates. I am bouyed by this positive aspect of the political process.

This story is journalism at its best. It peels away a layer of information to ply deeper motives that what is understood by initial reports.

The author of this article missed one critical player in this story, Congressman Norm Dicks. In his interview on the PBS News hour he offered some real questions regarding this deal. The article does inform us of some key aspects of the bidding and awarding process like “Congress cannot change the decision, which Air Force officials say followed all rules and regulations. But it does hold the purse strings to the Air Force budget and could effectively shut down the program.”

Even though this article doesn't list all the issues regarding domestic relations it gives enough examples to form a picture of a broader spectrum. I believe that anyone who tends towards prejudice against domestic partnerships should open their minds and realize there are reasons that instituting more rights for non-traditional unions is not a threat to traditional unions.

My main problem with this article is citing contrasting percent gains of "...industry-wide online sales up 20.8 percent..." vs. "...interactive revenues gained a meager 1.4 percent..." Without knowing the values of these two revenues it’s impossible to tell whether the contrasting percent increases reflect similarly widely contrasting dollar values.

What's missing here is evidence that there was an attempt to get a response from industry whether they had substantial reason, other than apparent bias, to remove Rice. There are no arguments against the evidence presented that the chemicals are harmful. They maybe don't have any such arguments; but it would be good to include that in the story.

This article reflects good research except there are only a couple of sources and there are many other claims of facts not backed up by sources.

Unquestioningly one of the best written critiques of recent history I've read. I have not paid much attention to this publication before but I now have a new respect for it and intend to read it often. As far as the "big picture" I believe it scratches the surface and, because of the limits of its scope, makes one realize there is a lot more to learn about these administrations. A truly "big picture" would take volumes to tell the whole story.

A well balanced approach leaves me believing that there was, indeed, incompetence rather than some skullduggery involved. That being said there is an element of doubt that a vast advertising campaign can leave the advertised candidate without many votes. What the article does not say is if there were Hillary campaign signs. If not then skepticism sets in. In my experience the candidate that is advertised has the edge in a political subdivision. Results of exit polling often points to suspect election results; but I’ve not seen an effective investigation that has resulted in overturning election results. Because no exit polling are cited one can only wonder.

This is an excellent piece on a practice that smells of graft and corruption. The article does not blame either party but it shows a bi-partisan effort to reduce the practice with independent agencies spurring progress.

I am pleased that this publication does have quality writers like Mr. Saletan. I quit reading Slate a number of weeks ago when they printed a rediculous piece, complete with an audio clip, about Hillary's laugh. That sunk to a low level I would not expect in a legitimate news journal. This one reminds me of the other end of the quality spectrum.

The balance in this article comes in the fourth paragraph; where the author justaposes Volcker's respect "among central bankers, Wall Street and economists for breaking the back of inflation in the 1980s" with "at the cost of the deepest recession the country has seen since the Great Depression."

I consider this in league with excellent journalism because it details both candidates' mistatements. I believe the mistatements were minor, but it is encouraging to me to get an organization to pay close attention to the debates and report on these mistatements.

Well balanced, it even reports the Clinton perspective so an Obama supporter could offer a counter argument after reading it. It doesn't try to pass judgement on either camp; it just reports on their tactics.

It is becoming clear that polls aren't the most reliable source from which to gauge voters’ preferences in this race so far. All the pre-primary pointers were in Obama’s direction; but, as one very wise analyst said long ago, “The only poll that counts is the election”. But if the polls are not accurate are we left with a monster guessing game of just what does appeal to the voters? I would be willing to bet that this is in the back of the minds of the “experts” at this time.

In its limited scope this article presents a snap-shot of a cropped portion of a larger picture. It can be considered accurate because it doesn't try to cover too much ground.

This article could have been better if it had uncovered some of the deeply held convictions that Obama could not be a successful president. Even if I would disagree with those opinions it would be good to get them out into the open.

I am impressed by the substance of this article that is well sourced and objective.

This article extrapolates from a few sources and makes a lot of conclusions based on very little actual information. I have to admit that it confuses me. I am compelled to do more research to find out the real truth. I have not read "An Inconvenient Truth" but I did see the film. I started reading "Assault on Reason" and it has given me a lot of confidence in Mr. Gore's ability to bring reason to the debate. One doesn't need more sources to see the soundness in Mr. Gore's ability to think and articulate the truth as you read the latter book.

This is one of the best articles I've read in a long time in terms of all the criteria I have used to grade it. It doesn't even take a careful re-reading of it to absorb all the information. It is possible that an intense interest in the subject, over the years, has kept my mind focused on it that makes me believe that I can judge this article on its journalistic merits.

This story, while consoling to those of us who remain steadfastly against the Iraq occupation, has no opposing viewpoints in it. The only sources are polling results. While they go far in supporting the issues they address there are no sources for several myth-buster statements.

This story is lacking in clarity. The most important issue, the opt out alternative, is not explained to my satisfaction. There is virtually no background to make it clear and comparing it to opting out of retirement plans makes no sense to me.

This is a good article because it starts out with one set of expectations and ends with another. The change was after seeing the effect of the event that the author writes about.

The article is surprisingly inclusive in its brevity. By including the rational behind the board's decision the other side of the story was presented. This must have been a part of a larger article because Hammer isn't really identified.