Not sure where the reporter was going with this article, what does President Obama's vacation have to do with illegal Brazilian immigrants? It seemed like a poor attempt at relating to the 'big picture.' The article seems to be written based on other publications. Little to no primary research was done for this piece - the quotes are not even original. The author also appears to be biased, and places assumptions on the subjects of the article (i.e. "And like others he will probably be unaware of the thousands of illegal immigrants..." when referring to President Obama).

I think this article is a very good example of good journalism. The reporter supplied a sufficient amount of background information for the reader, even someone who has never seen RENT would have been able to follow the story. The author could have remained more objective by providing more quotes from those who were against the change in the script (other than the last quote in the article).

The story is a Q&A, so in-depth journalism is not a factor, but the questions were very insightful and so were the answers. Dozens of articles on the transgender attack have been circulating, but this article practice good journalism by creating a different type of story. It does not cover the attack, but how the community and grow beyond the attack. It takes initiative to write this kind of article - over-all good journalism.

The article may not be of interest to many readers, but the journalism behind it good. Wykoff does an excellent job of describing to the reader what exactly the award exemplifies. There is only one quote from the story, which takes away from it, especially since the there is no quote from Nina Marks herself. The information is represent in a unbiased way.

This article does not practice good journalism as far as giving the story context and providing the reader an in-depth account of the incident. The Investigative Voice does, however, remain extremely objective while writing the article. It can be difficult not use words like "brutal" or "deranged" when describing that certain kind of situation (coincidentally applying guilt where guilt may not be due). A good journalist must remain neutral; this reporter may not have had a lot of information and chose to report it the way a good journalist would - straight forward, sticking to the facts.

For an opinion piece, this article is very good journalism. Not only does Birch keep the reader entertained with quirky and short anecdotes, he is able to personify Mayor William Donald Schaefer for those who have never met or heard of him. Birch’s relationship with Schaefer may have been a mostly down-hill rollercoaster, but the writer does a very good job of coming off as rather objective – considering it is his opinion.

This article is a great example of good journalism. Ericson gives substantial background on the issue, and then presents every side of the argument. He even quotes a neighborhood man who seems rather impartial to the argument over the liquor licenses in Federal Hill. The entire article was written very objectively; they only opinions I received where those of the people being quoted.

Simple, straight forward beat. Good journalism and good reporting on the murders that occur in Baltimore City.

This article does not represent good journalism. The author, Vozzella, begins the story talking about raising money for the Edgar Allan Poe house (supporting the title), then continues by talking about celebrities on twitter, and finishes with why people should run barefoot. I was completely confused while reading.

Clemmer creatively tells his reader about the re-enactment of the Pratt Street Riot by telling the story of a rather prejudice man named Leonard Pitts. Clemmer fails, however, to give much detail about what the article is orginally about - the re-enactment. I do not consider this good journalism and the story does not read very clearly.

Forman does an adequate job of giving the readers important background information on the subject of the piece, Kweisi Mfume. Information on both his career and personal life are given. The writer, however, loses his objectivity when he describes Baltimore's ex-mayor Sheila Dixon's resignation as a "disgrace."