GOP's Utah and Maine conventions show a party coming unglued

Future historians tracing the crackup of the Republican Party may well look to May 8, 2010, as an inflection point. That was the day, as is now well known, that Sen. Robert Bennett, who took the conservative position 84 percent of the time over his career, was deemed not conservative enough by fellow Utah Republicans and booted out of the primary. Full Story »

Posted by Randy Benson - via Google News (Republican Party), Tiffany Hebb (f)

See All Reviews »

Review

Elizabeth White-Nadler
3.7
by Elizabeth White-Nadler - May. 18, 2010

As is evident from the divergent reviews, personal political views easily affect one's receptivity to such an opinion piece. What I found of value in the piece was that Millbank perceives a shift of the political Right over to the Far Right and he uses a number of recent news events to validate his perception. If one considers the "audience and purpose" of the piece, Millbank would have to be considered successful--the piece was written for a liberal audience to provide them with the benefit of what the author considers to be an insightful realization, and for that audience Millbank is both skillful and compelling.

Comment UPDATE: It appears I offended a fellow reviewer who interpreted my comments about personal views and objectivity as a criticism of his review. That was not my intention. In fact, I was referring to the fact that as liberals, I and some other reviewers may be more receptive (a.k.a. less objective) to left-leaning pieces like this one than our conservative counterparts . My comments were intended as an overture of reviewer comraderie (unlike, I could add, the rather snarky tone you used regarding my review of the PBS piece a few days ago; I don't know if you saw my additional comments on that one). If my overture today was clumsy, I apologize. ORIGINAL Comment: I have to salute the reviewer who attempted to evaluate the piece strictly on its journalistic merits (he must feel like a conservative lone wolf in the midst of a forest of liberal reviewers). I think his evaluation is accurate on the face of it, using the criteria set out by NewsTrust and going through the questions one by one. The thing is, when we're reviewing opinion pieces (and this is, and I will relabel it accordingly) we have to choose which questions are appropriate to answer. For an example, how do you rate "fairness" in an opinion piece? It certainly shouldn't require the same balance that straight news reporting does. Anyway, I understand that someone might anticipate the "knee-jerk one rating," and want to say that I've rarely seen much of that from NewsTrust reviewers. Now that we have a separate place for the "Notes" and "Comments" it should be easier to rate one another on the content of our reviews about the journalism as opposed to the differences in our political or philosophical viewpoints. The differences do keep things interesting!

See All Reviews »

Elizabeth's Rating

Overall
3.7

Good
from 10 answers
Quality
3.6
Facts
3.0
Style
3.0
Context
3.0
Depth
3.0
Enterprise
4.0
Relevance
5.0
Popularity
4.0
Recommendation
3.0
Credibility
5.0
More How our ratings work »