This story is for the most part quality journalism as it adheres to many of the nine elements of journalism. This story shows how journalism is an independent monitor of power – versus large corporations as well as the Supreme Court. In essence, the Court held a hearing to decide whether or not to overturn decisions which limits the political influence of corporations during elections. Customarily, the Court stands by its previous decisions, but the hearing they held recently raises questions about that and whether or not it is a good thing to remove those restraints. This also shows journalisms loyalty to citizens, as this is important information that could affect everybody in the United States. The reporter showed a discipline of verification by quoting multiple sources and providing easily verifiable information. It provides a public forum, as the Washington Post has a comments section which has been very active for this story and many ways to share with other readers. I found this story to be comprehensive and proportional, as it covered all the details from more than one angle, with equal weight to different angles. They could have done better in making the story interesting and relevant, as it took several reads to digest the meat of the story. However the facts were there with a lot of the dross removed.