I'm a writer (mostly scripts) and producer (mostly documentary), living in the Boston area. I joined NewsTrust through my connection with Rory O'Connor--we were producers on the same series a couple of decades ago.
It think this article is good journalism for a number of reasons. 1) A lot of shoe leather (or the electronic equivalent thereof) went into the research. 2) Though he doesn't include opposing quotes and facts that would support the argument that these Wall Street folks are innocent lambs, nothing smacks of bias. 3) The article was so well reported and written that I felt compelled to send the link to others.
In all the mega coverage of this mega bill, it's hard to know who speaks the truth. Any individual statement needs to be fact checked. So it's good to see factcheck.org giving unbiased analysis of the "truthiness" of what people said at the Blair House health care summit.
It's excellent journalism--very powerful without resorting to diatribe or coloration. It's long enough to give voice to complexities, but not so long as to discourage readers from finishing it. It's the kind of clear-minded reporting this important topic deserves.
This is, surprisingly, a can't-put-it-down-until-I-finish-it story. Who would have thought that cellphones can, with entrepreneurial imagineering, affect the economy positively and profoundly in in some areas of the world? The article is fascinating, with plenty of facts and anecdotes to keep it moving.
I think this is excellent journalism because it succeeds in telling a big story about the present and future of Israel by focusing on two individuals--one the prime minister, the other a writer. I personally got a lot from reading it--not only facts, but also an understanding of multiple perspectives. It's trustworthy in part because you sense the author isn't grinding his axe, and also because the article is filled with a wide variety of direct quotations.
It's good journalism simply because it reports one authority's opinion without (noticeably) twisting it. Soros is someone whose opinions I generally respect, so it's valuable to hear what he thinks about the present economic situation. Also, there's a note of optimism in his statements. Who can tell if this "slightly hopeful" view will be borne out by events, but it's refreshing to hear.
This one's good narrowcasting--it's probably not a story that will grab the general newsivore. Charlie Rose's interview with Chris Anderson interests me personally, because I find the subject of revenue models in the Web 2.0 world fascinating. This video story, plus the related story in Wired magazine, got me ruminating about new ways to go about a book project. I trust both Charlie Rose and Chris Anderson.
I think it's good journalism because it contextualizes the particulars of a present-day economic story with the right amount of historical background.
