This article reads more to me like a retelling of what took place at a finance committee meeting with a listing of the bills, and a few quotes from the key participants. I think it would have been better to use this information as a starter to a more in-depth article on what Maryland's overall strategy is on the environment and saving money through green approaches, versus a listing of the bills proposed. While the article is factual, and does provide some sourcing, I think it falls short overall. If you really did just want to know what happened at the meeting, though, and wanted nothing else, you are probably happy with it. It's also written well enough, very straight-forward and direct. It just left me wanting to know a bit more.

This is, I"m afraid, a typical story you would see coming out of a committee hearing whether in Annapolis or Washington. I think the reporter lays out both sides of the story but there's no real indication of where these bills are going.

This article seems to be a simple report from a MD Senate Finance Committee hearing. There is a place for that type of article, and I find it useful to hear a recap of the debates on this important topic occurring in Annapolis this session. However, the bills are not discussed in much depth (Where do they fit into the overall renewable energy debate this year? Are there House companion bills? How controversial are these measures, and how likely are they to pass?). Experts cited are probably just those who made it to the hearing to present testimony and it is not clear if any attempts were made to check the facts they cited. The Sierra Club representative is mentioned twice but not named. The headline could make it clearer that ... More »

I did not think this was good journalism at all. I thought it was poorly written and not easy to follow along with. I also thought the article started off with a broad tone and did not follow through; it felt very incomplete to me. The article was also sourced almost exclusively with democratic sources. I would not recommend this article.

I do not think that this is well written. I felt as though the reporter just listed the sources with the information instead of writing the story in a way that the reader can learn from it.

This is ok journalism. The reporter presents three separate bills and provides only a one or two sentence summary of each bill, with very little context and sources to explain the background and impact of the story. The reporter also introduces the opposing view point using the phrase "Some environmentalists and residents presented the other side of the story," which I never think is necessary. If the reporter is doing a good job, we'll get that the next sources quoted represent the other side. She usually only quotes the representative backing the bill and sometimes one other source. It's just not enough reporting to explain the importance of each bill.

It is an interesting topic to cover and the writer does a good job of explaining the issue. However, she definitely could have gone into further detail about the various arguments for and against the bills mentioned in this article.

I didn't think this was a good example of journalism. The quotes were uneven for the two sides. On the support side they had a guy who spent 30-years with the EPA and thus his words hold some credibility. on the other hand, they had a random frederick resident. Also it seemed like the reporter was simply restating notes from a meeting instead of explaining the story and issue to the reader.

This is a summary of a arguments made in the state legislature, which is relevant and of interest to people in the state. I like how many perspectives are included -- pro-incinerator, free-market environmentalists and others. But the story is pretty average in terms of writing quality. The reporting is there, so I guess it can be considered "good journalism." I have no idea why I have this story rated as a 3.3. I called it "incomplete" and "poorly written," yet Newstrust has it as a 3.3. Hmm.

It covered all the basics, but I was interested in hearing more details about whether or not it's likely that the state will start converting more trash into energy, and what the environmental effects will be.

While I admit this is not the BEST story I have read about renewable energy, it is well-sourced and presents both sides of the argument clearly. It explains both the benefit and the expense of converting trash into energy. My criticism of the piece is that while the reporter did her job of remaining objective, the story does not come to any real conclusions. The issue presented remains two-sided and does not convince me to feel one way over the other, though it did educate me on the possibility of converting trash to energy.

This is an uninteresting story that does not really inspire any confidence in me that this story is relevant. It reads almost as a list, going through bill by bill, and is a difficult read because of the writing style. This is more of a blog post and the site does not seem as reputable to me compared to other legitimate news sources.

The opening sentence of this report sets the tone for the rest of the story. It is convoluted, unnecessarily lengthy, and includes unnecessarily confusing double entendres ("trash talk"). The report is basically a laundry list of the 6 bills referred to in the opening sentence. It gives minimal amounts of information on each bill, before moving on. There is no flow or connection between the paragraphs. There is no conclusion, letting the reader know what the overall take-away should be from the story.

As I read this bill, I had trouble figuring out what context, if any, this bill fit under. How much garbage is actually IN that landfill. The only word I see is "ungodly" in a quote from a biased party. While including all the energy bills on the table was good reporting, the main topic of the story is poorly presented and difficult to grasp.

Questionable. These certainly are important issues. And the reporter made a noble attempt to present multiple perspectives on the wisdom of incineration as a solution while covering the rest of what happened in this hearing. But I came away with little understanding of the issues or the process. (An essential element of a process story --when such stories are necessary -- is explaining what happens next.) I appreciate the importance of keeping tabs on issues like these as they make their way through the state legislature. But I wonder if there isn't a better way to do it than the traditional news story.

Going green is a topic I enjoy reading about; but I found this article to be slightly redundant. Although there was some useful information I wish more about the pros and cons of incinerators was included. Not many sources were quoted - instead just a general statement of why incinerators are good, and one statement about they're bad were used.

I would say this was the least favorite of my stories. There was not very much background information provided and it wasn't very helpful or informative. The information that was presented seemed to just be repeating itself.

This article has potential, but lacks a balanced report. The quotes used to support the the conversion of waste to energy are much stronger than those in opposition. There are no direct quotes from the other side. Overall, the facts are not coherent or brought together in a clear manner.

Out of the four articles, I reviewed, I think was my least favorite and represented average journalism. The story might have been well written and provided some facts, but it did not go into much detail. The reporter only provided two quotes, which were very short and were not elaborate. Additionally, I don't really think this article to a conclusion. It just left me asking wondering what was going to happen with the future of energy.

Accurate summary of the committee hearing, but it gives little background on the issue at-large and doesn't include any voices from supporters/opponents who did not attend the hearing. There's no context here to give the reader a comprehensive understanding of the state's renewable energy policy and its progress fulfilling clean energy goals. This story might provide decent supplemental information for readers keeping up with the 2011 session, but it won't be of much use to those with a casual interest in state politics.

Where did the reporterr get this info? It's not sourced. Maryland has already set the goal of producing 22% of all electricity in the state through green sources by 2022, and the law sets out the percentage of energy that can come from different kinds of sources. Waste-to-energy is currently a “tier 2” renewable resource, meaning that just 2.5% of the total renewable energy can come from that source.

This story read like a reporter was assigned to cover a committee hearing and went and chronicled what everyone said and put it together in a laundry list. It could have been woven together a little more artfully, or better yet could have been string saved for a more satisfying piece on how lawmakers are struggling with what kind of "green" energy policies to pursue because some of the measures that sound good are actually counterproductive - or whatever. I sympathize with the reporter who probably had an assignment to meet on deadline. But with more time and a little more synthesis it could be stronger.

I think it's a good issue to which many people don't often pay attention to have been highlighted in this article, and for that it gets some credit. Nonetheless, there wasn't anything particularly hard-hitting or conclusive about it. There was nothing suggested to be done, though I guess that would make it more of an opinion column, wouldn't it?

A decent rundown of a Finance Committee hearing, but that's all. There's no context hear to give the reader an comprehensive understanding of the state's renewable energy policy and it's progress fulfilling clean energy goals. This story might provide decent supplemental information for readers keeping up with the 2011 session, but it won't be of much use to those a casual interest in state politics.

The story seems to be an example of pretty good journalism. It presents an overview of several of the environmental bills proposed in the Maryland assembly. Most of the article focuses on Thomas Middleton's proposed waste incinerator legislation. The aricle describes the arguments of both the supporters and opponents of the bill. The article devotes less page space to two other proposed bills: an annual energy statistic disclosure bill and a modification to the rules regarding how individual producers of surplus energy are compensated. Since these proposed bills are given less attention, the article understandably does a worse job of presenting all sides of the debate. I had many unanswered questions about these two other ... More »

It's ok. It's got good references to the event/hearing, but it doesn't speak to the larger issue of other resources in Maryland. It lacks generalization and support for idiots on the issue like myself. Well written, but lacking some overall relevance.

I see

this article presents the facts, but is lacking in detail. Furthermore, the author does not follow AP Style when listing the percentages, which makes the third graph look sloppy. Overall the story lacks sources and details that can relate to the average reader.