The USA Today covered the story of comedian Stephen Colbert testifying in front of congress without bias, in detail, and with context--as nearly all coverage of the event has. But while the story may not be as original or creative as it could have been, the event has been covered well, and it does not really fall down in any real areas. It covered a comedian discussing a very serious issue in front of congress, and it did it as well as it could have been expected.

This editorial showcases the proper way in which commentary should be handled; there was respect when dealing with opposition, as well as evidence to support opinion. However, their was missing a bit of expertise that could have greatly helped the editorial board make its points more clearly. Also, had they tried to present their opponents position and then refuted it, the article would have been much stronger as well. But overall, it was a very fair editorial with only minor issues with contextual evidence.

The information presented in this article was somewhat interesting, but perhaps also slightly not as relevant as would be expected. The "Ten Economic Facts" should also have probably be arranged as a list, making it more user-friendly in reading. Also, there seems to be only a handful of citations regarding the information presented; if this was original research, that should have been noted in the article, or otherwise they should have been given the proper context and credits.

To me this story felt incomplete. It lacked a frame of reference and was "soft" news. It begins abruptly, without context, and its relevance is not made clear. That is not to say that the subject is neither intriguing or bad, but it was just so jarring, and the context so lacking, that it makes the human interest story a bit flat and wanting. It could have been done better if it was longer, explained the situation and the consequences, and provided more context.

This story achieved a reasonable and expected level of non-partisanship, having no immediately discernible political leanings. This story delved into questions on the specifics of the legality of Arizona's SB1070; particularly, whether or not provisions prohibited in the bill had the right to be withheld. The author gave good highlight to the points of both sides and gave cut-and-dry information about the issues.