This is a prime example of what some journalists think of as balanced reporting. You just find some credible "experts" on both sides of an issue and quote what they say. It doesn't matter if it is complete and utter nonsense--such as tax cuts will produce trickle-down employment--as though we haven't already had 8 years to see how badly that works. He's presented both sides, and so has done his job. No conclusions. No evaluation of what these "experts" have said. No context on whether or not similar plans have worked well or badly. In short, no added value. I could have written this.

I would say it is quality journalism because it shows off both sides of the campaign and how the economy is really the biggest struggle that the next president is gong to have to face.

I am way more informed on the presidental views about the economy than I ever was before. Also, how bad of a situation our country is in economically.

Well this piece seemed to be very biased to me. It did a good job of describing both candidate's proposals to solve the financial crisis but it was very clear that the author favored Obama's proposals over McCain's which made this story unfair and not very reliable.

It was very opinionated but not bias. It clearly discussed both candidates economy plan.

The story seemed to contain more opinions as opposed to cited facts about each opponents plans, which would make it not necessarily 100% factual - but it was still unbiased and showed each political side.

A clear outline of each candidates Economic plans. Easily understandable and very informative.