I've always heard that studies this small don't offer statistically significant results. Still, I found the concepts and results interesting.

A continuation of the 24-hour cable discussion, only online. Corn doesn't say anything I haven't already heard, proposes no new interpretation, and advances no new proof for the opinions. Corn is a better journalist than this.

Classic Krugman. Even though it's not his field, the man is a close observer of the American political scene and has been right more than a few times. Democrats ought to pay attention to him.

Cole is one of the foremost experts on the Middle East. This is far from being one of his best pieces. But it does an adequate job of explaining the current impasse.

Sad to read the U.S. is still considered the major impediment to progress on this critical issue. But McCarthy makes a good case for why it is so. He also does a good job of summarizing where other countries stand.

A damming piece that shows the attitude that war trumps the law. If this were so, we would not have war crimes trials. Usborne could have gone into more background. But most readers probably know it.

An interesting look at the mood in Iran.

The representative fails to provide any proof for ANY of his arguments. He also fails to note the success or failure of health systems in other countries that would tend to prove or disprove his arguments.

I guess I have a different definition of "paying off." To me, it would mean Congress is about to achieve meaningful reform that will contain health care costs and improve access to care for the American people. This article fails to prove that. Instead it is another puff piece for Rahm Emanuel.

This piece falls in the category of speaking truth to power. Though Solnit starts with the current water wars going on in California, she ably expands her theme to the U.S. as a whole to examine how our priorities are shaping our future.

Interestingly, the one thing that would provide a convincing argument for protection as journalists is never mentioned: Did the students write up the results of their investigations as articles? The argument that they were working as an investigative agency is more persuasive if they did not.

I read the story first in The Independent this morning. But there it was linked to another recent story about a high-profile defection (which I've linked here). This provided more context. Neither original article digs very far into the decades-long controversy into the group, or the actions taken in other countries.

Not a very good story as it fails to note that most credit card companies have already hiked rates. So this is a pretty clear case of shutting the barn door after the horse is already out. Still, with that background information, I thought it so funny I had to post it.

I heard about this yesterday. But this is the first story I've read about it. Though I believe it fairly represents what happened, it leaves out a lot of context. For example, the Bush administration did this routinely with reporters who published things they didn't like. This is nothing new. Fox just isn't used to it.

There are a few gems buried in this haystack, namely the quotes from David Corn and Thomas Frank. But much of it is unfocused and just gossip. Mr. Frank calls a piece by Glenn Back "almost entirely incorrect." That is the point. Not just that they are biased, but that they are lying to the public. Corn shows how they slant everything, even an appearance by a liberal. That's also the point. The frame matters. And Fox knows it. That's why they do it.

He's certainly right about Olberman, but he misses the central question: Is our news media unbiased? Is it useful if it is not? Should it be able to call itself "news" if it is not?

First off, as somebody who works with Silicon Valley companies, I have to tell you that 4 years is practically a lifetime in technology. Since his first quote is from the author of a study published in 2005, that's already dated. Some of the other, more recent quotes, are probably more accurate. In fact, a recent outage of fiber-optic telephone lines in my area crippled clinics that rely on electronic records. So there are undoubtedly some flaws. That said, other studies repeatedly ... More »

This is the old Reagen welfare-queen argument, repackaged for today's issues. What Cowen's arguments prove is that we'd be better off with a federal program than one administered by the states, that our welfare system needs incremental phaseouts instead of all benefits ending at once, and that we need more government price controls over our healthcare system. Somehow I don't think those were the arguments he meant to make.

This passionate appeal for reality-based journalism suffers from two defects. First, it ignores the impetus to defend one media outlet because of the fear that yours may be next. Second, in defending Richard Engel, Froomkin exposes the sort of framing under the guise of asking questions that Fox has been accused of.

The British press is all over the place on this appearance, with some claiming there was too much focus on Griffin, that other politicians didn't honor their democratic principles and ganged up on him, and that it gave him the chance to play the martyr. But most seem to agree with the Times that he made a poor showing. I actually love the fact that senior government figures take questions from the studio audience. I watched it once and it was amazing. I'd so like to see a show like ... More »

Fox has news? I've never seen it. I thought it was all commentary all the time.