I rated this article poor because it is impossible to fact check the main claim which forms the basis for the entire article because it is based on "People close to the negotiations who were not authorized to speak publicly about them". I understand that this is necessary to do sometimes but they should have used direct quotes from the unnamed sources so that the reader would be able to come to their own conclusion about the contents of the negotiations. Instead, we get the author's summary which may or may not be accurate.

Cohen's justification for being wary of retribution is that "words failed us all in the aftermath of 9/11, a time of fear and disorientation. Journalists did not meet the challenge of holding the executive branch accountable, politically and morally, in the run-up to the Iraq war."...except that there was a vocal minority who did exactly that but were ridiculed. His justification seems to rest on "we were all wrong so there's no accountability".

The only thing it is missing is a deeper examination/explanation of the role racism plays in the impetus for this policy.

Although I agree with the overall thrust of the story--that industry is getting on board with new environmental regulation, I feel that the quotes were cherry picked to support the point being made. Jim Rogers, the CEO of Duke Energy in particular was on Rachel Maddow a week or two ago and his support for cap-and-trade was very lukewarm. I don't think this story has enough balance.

Author presents claims from all sides but does no research to validate claims. The headline (not necessarily Ms. Lerer's fault) doesn't indicate that the number the GOP is using is disputed by author of the study which is the most salient point in the entire article.