Surowiecki plays a strong hand poorly. There are good criticisms of the supply side argument - he doesn't make them. He actually contradicts himself while trying to show the (real) weaknesses of the supply side case: he admits that tax cuts change behavior, then wants to compare post-cut tax income with what it would have been under the old tax rate, WITHOUT accounting for that changed behavior. His biases are clear but not compelling. Poorly sourced and dogmatic.

A remarkably alarmist and one-sided cartoon masquerading as journalism. None of the many serious questions about global warmism are raised; nobody skeptical of this "hair trigger" doomsday scenario is sought out or quoted. "Scientists" are presented as a uniform group who all agree - demonstrably untrue - and the IPCC is presented as a credible and neutral source, which is certainly open to question. Overall, this story does not deserve the name journalism.

A timely and fair take on the recent Greenspan book and the larger pattern of books by insiders. Makes a further point in the final graf about the Bush Whitehouse's silencing of internal dissent. Key quote: Mr. Greenspan's "total silence" while in office does not exactly qualify as "bravely speaking out." [The] point ... can be summed up as: Now you tell us? It doesn't take courage to speak clearly when no one can hurt you. It takes guts to be candid when candor can earn powerful enemies.

This appears to be an intentionally dishonest piece. The author is clearly eager to debunk columnist Barone, who claims a 30-July-2007 article is changing the way Washington is viewing the Iraq war. But he quotes opinion surveys that are NOT of Washington and that entirely pre-date the article. If we interpret Barone to be saying that the broader public is changing its view, we still would need polling to compare pre- and post- the article's publication date. Poor work.

Another NY Times disappointment, missing the forest for the trees. With the enormous history of price controls and market manipulation to draw on, the Times is somehow unable to find an authority or an historical parallel to say the obvious - that everything happening now was 100% predictable based on Mugabe's policies, and that what happens next is equally predictable. The article leaves the impression that the Times has no idea why things turned out as they have economically in Zimbabwe, nor what might unfold next. Sad.

Perhaps it's my profound mistrust of the New York Times, but I find it ominous and wrong that the article should chronicle so minutely the details of this particular fund's implosion without any quote, any nod, or any acknowledgment that funds are supposed to go out of business, that it's part of their normal life cycle. Hedge funds exist to transfer risk from those who don't want it to those who do, and people who take on risk are sometimes burned. Given the Times' long standing hostility to capitalism it's sad but unsurprising that this should read as an alarmist story, implying that hedge funds are evil and in need of greater regulation. Any reader who lacks detailed knowledge of the financial markets would certainly reach ... More »

Background on the very different world view of many Africans towards Western medicine, providing valuable context for the recent and shameful payoff of Libya for freeing six healthcare professionals. I'd have liked more sourcing, but the details are rich enough to justify a close reading and a heightened awareness of how much we don't know about Africa's view of the West and the world.

A story review in NewsTrust should have nothing to do with agreeing with the author or liking the thrust of the story. As an opinion piece, this is exceptionally good - it is very timely, packed with detail, and highly credible. Its facts are new. I'd have liked a link to a more detailed version with more names, dates and places. As a part of the conversation regarding Iraq policy this is a crucial piece.

Rated high not so much for the content than for the topic, timeliness, and importance.

I'd have liked more and better sourcing - some of the sweeping assertions are just too sweeping for me - but Eland gives a good run at questioning the assumptions and assertions of the stay-the-course crowd, including the received wisdom that a collapsed Iraq would be worse than what we have now. Good enough to demand refutation by those who disagree.

Interesting what-if take on the world as it would be if Bush/Chaney hadn't "lied" the US into war in Iraq. May not be persuasive (more sources would have helped) but certainly raises the bar for those who want to paint a rosy picture of how the world would be with Saddam still in power.

Taranto's daily roundup of news articles and blog postings is written from the point of view of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page staff. It's always eclectic and often contrarian vs. the "mainstream" media. This edition includes media criticism directed at the BBC and the NY Times. Broad ranging, professionally written, and worth reading. And clearly opinionated.

Although it cries out for more sourcing, this opinion piece is a strong statement claiming early success for the US troop surge in Iraq that began June 15. Worth reading for both those who argue for victory and those who hope for defeat for the US.

A roundup of the mis-steps of the Bush administration in its attempts to confront the vile ideology of Islamic fascism, and a blueprint for a workable approach. Thorough on both counts.

Strong condemnation of the Democrats' slide into protectionism, and their unwillingness to admit honestly what they are about. Could have used some acknowledgment of other interpretations of the facts, but still a good summary of the situation as seen by the WSJ editorial board.

This is what a good anti-bush piece should be - detailed, sourced, and informative. (An appropriate quote from the Federalist Papers gives you an extra point from me.) The list of questions Froomkin suggests the Bush Administration answer is wonderfully pointed. I see no acknowledgment of opposing viewpoints, which weakens this somewhat, but still worth reading no matter what side you're on.

This rant has no journalistic value and does not deserve to be reviewed on NewsTrust. Good story? No. Informative? No new facts, and no clearer presentation of old facts. No sourcing except two links to lite opinion pieces. No acknowledgment of the other side's perspective. Just a bit of big picture. Not worth reading.

Appallingly bad even by the NY Times' plummeting standards. A good editorial acknowledges the best arguments on the other side and addresses them - this one does not. A good editorial looks at a bigger picture (i.e. Bill Clinton's perjury) - this one does not. Valid points have been raised about Fitzgerald's pursuing a leak case when he already knew the answer - not mentioned. This is partisan hackery.

This unsigned Wall Street Journal editorial analyzes the latest Supreme Court decisions and stakes out the position that the court has NOT lurched to the right. A useful counterpoint to articles alleging the end of civil rights in the US. Being an editorial it's not as clearly sourced as a news article, but the pointers to sources are there for anyone who wants to follow up. A good editorial, thoughtful and precise - possibly even persuasive.

Guliani in his own words. Good foreign policy questions from the editorial board. It's an interview so I can't evaluate it for journalistic quality, but it seems like a good and reasonably candid conversation with a major candidate. Worth reading if you want to know Guliani's thoughts on a multitude of topics.

Low marks only for "Big Picture" - but I don't expect (or want) this to show me a big picture - I want it to be what it is, an excellent examination of the actual text of public statements and ads. This article - while critical of a set of arguments for which I have some sympathy - is as fair as anything I've read in a long time.

My level of agreement or disagreement with the author aside, this is a moderate to poor posting. The history lesson regarding Fred Friendly is interesting, but without cites or links it's a mere assertion. The point about increasing amounts of political expression is valid, but cries out for a response to the "extremes" allegation being posited by the Fairness Doctrine's advocates.

A good blog posting. The only ways to improve it would have been to provide more details of the problem or a solution or both. I'd also have liked some links or references to other sources than the author's word for many of the assertions, though I happen to agree with him (based on my personal familiarity with medical trauma scoring, a different but related area). The average reader would be left deciding whether to trust the author - so more sources would have helped.

Delightful science story that combines the details of a particular incident with good background information, well presented, on what the mystery is, why it's a mystery, and what the evidence could mean. Very solid.

Despite the topic and the temptations of partisanship, the author managed a straightforward news story about the release of a movie. (I would remind other NewsTrust reviewers that agreeing with the topic of a story is no the same as reviewing the journalistic quality of a story.) Kevin Sack provides a balanced account of the partisan maneuvering surrounding the release of Moore's latest movie.

One shouldn't expect too much of a book review, but this one just ducked the important questions. The idea (from another NewsTrust review) that bacteria would require "hundreds of thousands of years" to evolve a way to break down a particular hydrocarbon would be an astonishing assertion to anyone familiar with bacteria. The entire book sounds far more like Greenie, anti-human wishful thinking than anything like science. The author's science credentials are weak to nonexistent, and his super-green, anti-human biases so strong, that it should have sparked at least one skeptical question. But no, apparently not in Scientific American. Disappointing. Either that, or book reviews are not journalism.

An impressive and (for me) enjoyable contrarian tour-de-force. The author contradicts most elements of conventional wisdom about the middle east, and marshals a host of detailed historical facts to back his position. I'm a sucker for good contrarian writing, but even controlling for that, this is a very good piece. It will challenge at least one element of belief for nearly every reader. More writers should be so thoughtful, serious, and detailed.

A typical infantilization of Hamas is front and center in this story. The author seems to find multiple actors at work - Israel, the UN, relief agencies, even Fatah - but somehow Hamas is not responsible in any way for the conditions in Gaza. This could be a lack of Hamas spokespeople, but if so, the author should say so. This story is unbalanced, and I attribute it to the author's (and presumably the editors') attitudes toward the material being covered, which is inexcusable in journalism.

This is third hand reporting - a blog post about a press industry article about a newspaper series. I'm certainly grateful to the author for alerting readers to both the prior items, but the blog post itself is nothing special - it rehashes the press industry article. The author makes no effort to find any other sources, so I can't give him any bonus points for sourcing or fairness. It's a good read, but I can't help feeling that the good-guy-vs-bad-guy narrative is just a bit pat.

This story tries to take on an important issue, and fails utterly - the reader is left with no clear understanding of what the statistical anomaly really is, or even if it exists, or why; what could be done better; or what the policy implications for future data collection would be. This is really just a fear-mongering piece about the evils of globalization, and the "questionable" statistics are the only excuse for even running the story. Dreadful journalism, and one of the reasons I avoid Business Weak.

A good attempt to see the debate from the perspective of the author's opponents. I don't think it entirely succeeds, but it's well worth reading.

I love this piece, but I wrote it, so I'm not impartial.

The reporter managed to assemble the facts but misunderstood them, and took as fact the accusation that Limbaugh was making "derogatory statements" about Obama. Reading between the lines we see that Limbaugh is accusing the Left of racism and is highlighting criticisms by some black leaders that Obama "isn't black enough". By buying into the "Limbaugh is a racist" trope the reporter blinds herself to the rest of the story, particularly the details of David Ehrenstein's column that called Obama a "Magic Negro". Missing too is any examination of the very real issue of jealousy of Obama's success by Sharpton. Also missing is any link to the actual lyrics of the parody song that is supposed to be so racist.

I would have liked to get more background on the reasons entrenched stakeholders have for resenting Wolfowitz's anti-corruption reforms. Certainly the astonishing anti-Wolfowitz bias in the mainstream press, as evidenced by their clearly selective and unfair reporting, is laid bare in stunning fashion. Excellent journalism. (It's shameful that some reviewers on NewsTrust are so blatantly anti-neo-con that they can't see good journalism when they don't agree with it.)

Published two days after the World Bank released 109 pages of detailed documents of the Wolfowitz affair, the IHT apparently couldn't be bothered to read any of it. That makes this editorial so woefully uninformed and inadequate as to be worse than useless. It is nothing less than journalistic malpractice. The alternative, that the editors knew that Wolfowitz is innocent and wrote this editorial anyway, is unconscionable.

Written by a former member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group, this offers the perspective that Islam as a religion has problems and that the West (or its intellectuals) are helping make those problems worse. One need not agree with the premise to learn a lot from the author's obvious knowledge of the topic. As he puts it, "Tolerance does not mean toleration of atrocities under the umbrella of relativism." Very thought provoking.

Rabinowitz returns to her "unjust prosecution" roots in this analyis of an ongoing espionage case. While I don't expect her to be terribly fair, Rabinowitz's value comes from taking a very detailed look at the prosecution side of a case and finding all the holes, especially the ones the rest of the MSM (main stream media) have missed. Here she again shines, providing plenty of reason to doubt the justice or accuracy of the prosecution's case. Very well researched and written.

Exceptional look at the sleeping totalitarian impulse in some of the Republican presidential candidates, at least when caught off guard. The use of quotes by Jefferson and Churchill, and the recasting of the point into parallel topics by leftists, wonderfully illustrates the author's point. (We Republicans could wish this were just an April Fool's joke.)

Fund conducts a good interview. He asks Thompson about past problems. Fund also provides historical context and analysis. Very impressive work.

Finally, an examination of the paradoxical marriage of convenience between the European Socialists and the Islamo-Fascists.