News analysis is less likely to rely directly on sources, but this needs better sourcing. How reliable, for example, is the North Korean media? I rated this in the middle as far as being factual. I prefer analysis based more on clear facts and sources. I am wary of news analysis that speculates without citing sources. If we presume this is based on good sourcing that needs to remain anonymous, it deserves a better score than I gave it, but as it stands, I'm not that impressed.

This is an opinion column - the equivalent of talking-head punditry on television. Sarah Posner is essentially saying that Warren is not a good choice for the inaugural invocation because he doesn't believe what she believes - what she believes all progressives believe. So what? Obama is the President of the United States, not just his progressive supporters. Why shouldn't he choose someone to give the invocation that in all likelihood didn't vote for him? This piece takes political sides by saying that Warren's beliefs are wrong because Posner disagrees with them. Isn't that a definition of a personal attack? A more journalistically sound approach would be to examine why Warren's beliefs are troubling. Posner assumes ... More »

Doesn't go very deeply into the issue, but does frame the question reasonably well.

1) The story uses the term "raid," implying that law enforcement expected to interrupt an ongoing criminal enterprise. In fact, as mentioned at least once in the story, this was a search rather than a raid. 2) The story refers to Stevens' spending on legal fees and compares his spending with the spending of Rep. Don Young. The story says that both are "spending large sums on lawyers," but Young spent 7 times as much as Stevens. The story implies, but fails to provide context on whether the level of spending by either lawmaker is unusual.

This piece is merely an attempt by Washington Post Staff Writer Paul Farhi to make fun of the labels TV news outlets use. While there is some newsworthiness in the topic, Farhi's only goal seems to be showing how clever he can be. A real news story might investigate how helpful or unhelpful banner information is to viewers. My personal pet peeve as a news channel-surfer is that the source is seldom identified in the banner except at the very beginning of the story. Tune in a few seconds late and you don't know who this person is or why their information is credible.