Another example of the differences between some Republicans and some Democrats

This is a well-written science paper and it's well done because it explains the concepts of pepper spray well enough for most of us non-scientists to understand the hazards of being sprayed in the face/throat by it and the need to not repeat the same mistakes again.

I've been following John Nichols/The Nation for years and know they are well-sourced. Since the winter "disturbance" in Madison, I've been reading/listening to Mr. Nichols' reporting of the events, which have been excellent and compared with other sources, truthful and non-partisan. Continuing with this article on Trumka's discussions/activity with the nurses, Mr. Nichols defines the concerns, who is involved, and what the goals/solutions are needed/working toward in a well-worded/succinct essay

No, because when one lies (Emily's LIst is a pro-abortion organization - oh, really?), everything "good," is irrelevant.

I've followed Dr. Cole for years and trust him to know the situation in the Middle East. His writings are clear and succinct and his points are well-intended to those of us on the left, who are sometimes murky on our leanings. When I need information/direction, I can depend on Dr. Cole for the "solids."

I enjoy E. J. Dionne's writings; he makes sense easily, even when I don't agree with him. Although I'm not familiar with Real Clear Politics, I am with Mr. Dionne and I trust him. I've been hearing about this disconnect between Washington and the "hinterlands" for decades but it does seem worse today, which Dionne's article clearly brought out.

Maybe if I was more aware of this publication, I would feel better toward this article but since I've followed, closely, this economic collapse and noticed who has gotten hurt and who hasn't been touched (nor gone to jail/trial), I can say this was a lousy piece of journalism offering one suggestion w/o any mention of raising taxes on those who didn't get hurt.

I haven't read any articles from Neiman Journalism Lab so I chose "No" to the trust question. Otherwise, I found the article a good reminder of the mission of NewsTrust and wished it could be expanded across the country. There is so much misinformation; when 90% of our media is conservative and only 10% progressive, there's no chance for alternative ways of thinking. And, thinking is the aim for NewsTrust.

I'm always searching for data that is just "straight and narrow" to combat the "other," which can be twisted to one side or another; factcheck.org has fulfilled that need for me. This article was written well, concise, fully referenced and articulated how information was mis-spoken.

Well-written and succinctly detailed with further information provided as "'back-up," which is needed to convince lovers of Fox News that it isn't news.

Maybe I read too much or, maybe I read the "wrong" authors but I felt Mr. Kurtz's interpretation of the rally, which I watched on C-Span (wow! C-span, who knew C-span would have so many different uses "back in the day"), was hollow and incomplete, although he picked-up on the concrete message: Bad media. My concern is "bad media" isn't balanced or, am I not balanced anymore? I'm an Olbermann/Maddow fan and when Olbermann "ranted" toward Bush about starting an illegal 'war' against Iraq, I thought that was a good thing but, on the other hand, O'Reilly 'ranting' against "baby-killer Tiller" over and over again wasn't a "good thing." There's a difference.

My ratings were all over the board because the ratings are not on a likert scale anymore and I find it difficult to be "black or white." I worked with students these age in public education and didn't find these characteristics as defining then as they are now showing up in the job market. But, during their growing-up years, they were the first of the lack-key kids, and as such, they were the first to be experimented with having an enormous amount of housework, etc. responsibilities placed upon them at home along with an increasing amount of school work also place upon their shoulders because Reagan and preceeding Republican presidents would scream, "Public schools are failing," which has led to the failure of our public ... More »

Well-said, with references stated (so one could google), and enough content to understand but not too much to fall asleep with so much research required to examine the report.

Yes, it expanded my knowledge of what happened to Digg and the reason(s) it was important. It a way it's kind of funny: The right-wing conservatives must be very scared their messages aren't getting out nearly enough so they have to rely on scamming/lying/manipulating ....like the "facts" they share .... in order to get heard. This was a mind-numbing exploration of the facts. Wow!

Riki Ott came to the Gulf from Alaska bringing with her the experience of the Exxon oil spill and her work/words are quoted frequently through-out this article. Along with other experts, truths are set out in this report that aren't being read/heard in other avenues. The Gulf is in sad/sick shape and if it can bring the tea-baggers together with environmentalist to over-come the control exhibited by the oil companies and led us into a more ecological safer world, may be some "good" will come of this evil.

If read as is, one would think it was a well-written, thought-out article but, if one fact-checked this article and found the sources to be full of Fox distortions, one's views could change. FoxTV/"News" needs to perceived not as a news channel but as a propaganda machine.

Laura Fitzpatrick wrote with kind concern without being maudlin about the true affects of "war" on females, whether they're actually "in" the "war" or "by" the "war," it doesn't seem to matter. She's concise and thorough about services for womyn and how far we have yet to go to help our servicemembers.

I didn't understand how come this was so important and, I didn't understand how come the WaPo fired Dave Weigel. He spoke his mind on a private, confidential (supposedly) weblog about what the Republicans were doing but what they were doing, we're not told. Who knows, we might agree they were "ratfuckers," too. I've listened to Dave Weigel and couldn't discern what party he "leant" toward because he talked about what each party did/n't do correctly. Too me, this was trash journalism.

Quality journalism tells a story as truthful as possible, with concrete facts and consequences, from both sides, and summarizes what has been said, which happened here.

I know Glenn Greenwald's professionalism from his previous writings and superb research. I trust what he writes and his research matches what I observe in life.

The author brings other voices to declare what will work in a country (the citizens themselves) rather than "experts" from the outside. In this case with Sudan, ICT is dreadfully needed but reaching the appropriate people is necessary for success. Ms. Heacock clearly explains what happens when connections don't work out and what can happen when the appropriate measures are taken. It's not the "ICT" fault but a broader based system problem within the country, which can't be seen by someone from the outside/ someone without the cultural sensitivities/etc. There needs to be more reporters/authors/writers in the "major media outlets" who are NOT wealthy, white, Christian men.

Yes, because the writing is fluid and concrete with honesty and relevance.

No, because I couldn't see past the untruths Mr. Batchelor wrote and how he wrote it haughtily. Mr. Batchelor says FoxNews isn't the setting for the Republican Party.... plese, how many times has Rush said he's the leader of the Republican party and where does he work? The Republicans say they can't get on any other channel? Please, they are on the other channels constantly, especially Sunday mornings. When you have a network that allows their speaker to attack the president as a racist who's establishing internment camps for Republicans, please. Mr. Batchelor states Axelrod sneaks into Fox but I saw a picture of him visiting 9-30-09. It's as thou Mr. Batchelor aimed for a Jim Hightower-type of article and it didn't happen.

I started to hear/read about Mr. Greenwald since AirAmerica began/March 2004 and have learned so much from him. He's intelligent, knows his law, is well-versed in whatever he writes about and I admire his philosophy/world view/values, such as this quote from him, in this article, ".... someone provides me with incriminating or otherwise revealing emails written by a government official about a matter of public interest, I'm going to publish them without first asking 'permission' from the official who wrote it and regardless of whether it will anger them."

I found the writing confusing along with what the article was trying to "say," besides pointing out various "hot" spots on the health insurance bills, like "best evidence," "best practice," and HR 3200, which was to allow states to have individual universal health insurance as a causeway to saving HR 676. I thought the writing was confusing and the issues were clouded intentionally. it's various points about the potential health insurance bill.

Yes .... Mr. Kennedy writes a personal story about Sen. Kennedy as his constituent; a notion not often brought out by the media. One hears a lot about Ted but rarely do we hear about those who were represented by Sen. Kennedy. I grew-up with Sen. Kennedy and I wanted to "hear" a different perspective and Dan K. provided it. His writing was clear, succient, and "different."

It is the President and it is in the Opinion section of the NYTimes, put together for what he/Pres. Obama is trying to say/express, it is quality journalism.