I don't think it is intended to be journalism. Instead, it simply reports a single person's somewhat random declarations during a 'debate'. It does not state what the question was that brought on the quoted statements, or if it was in response to another person's statements.
There are too many bare 'facts' without context. "Thousands joined in the street violence, hurling stones and tearing up the pavement for ammunition." - supporting the Copts? Supporting the government? Both, neither? Context of the original attack on a church? Facebook as a quotable and reliable source?
The story seems completely informed by a single source and opinion of some politicians (whose bias was not examined). Is a start of a story, told by the FBI, but definitely needs more support from different sources, or a bit of analysis of the issues given as an explanation of the reason behind the plan.
Not particularly. There are a number of quotes which sound like the current fashion of non-apology - "I've done something wrong BUT...I meant well/I've made up/etc.". Rather common among politicians. The article has taken the quotes and used them to illustrate an opinion which is not supported. Good journalism would be to support the opinions with the quotes; good writing would be to understate the opinions and show the quotes to prove how reasonable the opinion is...
This article explains a complicated natural event in an aspect rarely though of, and explains why it is a difficult event to capture the special aspect.
It made a very concise description of the finding of the Harvard researchers. Very clearly stated, with meaningful links to define the terms and allow access to the actual study. It did not compare the results to any other recent medical results, or list them for possible contrasting of the ideas with other sources.
Writing articles which try and analyze a person's behavior without trying to understand what the person's culture is seem to be missing a lot of clues. An added resource for this article would be an understanding of the Afghan culture, to see if the current behavior meshed in ways with his cultural expectations, not Western ones.
Not really sure. The headline states that the "U.S." has approved the targeted killing of a citizen, but the story doesn't clearly define U.S., though it does list more than one department's worth of unidentified spokesmen who suggest this is likely and expected...
This is an opinion piece. It may be correct in the end, but no evidence or special insight is applied.
Brings up the two sides of the case. Does not seem to do any separate research in medical files, but brings in a number of views from each side and some separate but related cases.
Quality journalism, digging into available sources to examine history to find truth. Seemed to ignore the question of how a bill reflected so closely the wishes of a lobbyist. Perhaps that is for another story.
Quality journalism, digging into available sources to examine history to find truth. Seemed to ignore the question of how a bill reflected so closely the wishes of a lobbyist. Perhaps that is for another story.
It doesn't sound like it is intended to be journalism, but an op-ed piece. There has been some discussion about this subject, but the alternative sides are not represented. I tend to agree with the writer, but he is not trying to be 'fair and balanced'.
My life as a communist
I like it a lot, fairly civil, even. It does bring you to the question of who gets to make the definitions. A complex problem – is he ‘communistic’? Is that a bad thing?