This story is laden with bias and should be considered an opinion article. It highlights important issues regarding free speech and copyright infringement, but fails to give voice to both sides of the argument.
While the issues raised in this story are pressingly pertinent, I felt the writing lacked any informative motive other than to table the sketchy Soviet-era underpinnings in modern Russia and lament the obsequious proclivities of the current administration.
This seems to be a fairly well written piece of journalism. Considering the prodigious nature of the leaks and all its implications inherent to it, it can be a challenge to find a difinitive focus. However, I feel this story covered its particular issue rather well.
This story has great potential but is severely lacking in depth and overall quality. Why does the government feel obligated to continue the holiday? Are there Americans who would rather not abolish Columbus' Day? These are questions I would expect a story like this to answer.
There was a lot of commenting on what we didn't know, but shouldn't there be some discourse on what we should know, or where Americans can get this information? This negativism sheds a poor light on journalism and could easily offend readers, in my opinion.
Nothing terribly new in this story, yet the same could be said about wiki-leaks themsevles. The scope of data is too broad to reveal anything substantial as of yet and this story carries that sentiment.
the depth of this story is immense, and its complete analysis of the drug, the disease it treats, and the efforts and shortcomings in getting the medicine properly distributed left no unanswerd questions at the story's close.
I felt the writing was subpar, and the report failed to give enough voice to the proponents of the shielding plan. How long did the city have to prepare for the games? How is the Commonwealth Games viewed on the world stage, and will its importance be overshadowed by the governments actions?
This story has done a fine job in not just reporting on the mosque attack but also highlighting the related incidents and thier proximity to the upcoming negotiations. Its inclusion of quotes from independent sources added depth as well.
This story did an excellent job of distilling a topic that would otherwise be laden with technical jargon uncdecipherable to the layman. The concise explanations of the project's overall purpose and individual methods made its relevance clearer.
A well written piece of journalism, however, it merely painted a sorrowful picture of displaced Haitians and lacked any alternative voice. Why did the organization that set up the suggestion boxes not have a plan to answer back?
Its good journalism with very concise reporting, however, I would've like to have learned a little more about Othman and UNOOSA; perhaps a brief background or history. Also, why does Crowther hold Othman in high regard?
I believe this article contains the essentials of good journalism. Taking into consideration the geographic constraints and clandestine nature of the Russian political machine I can understand the seeming one-sided position of the story. The coverage was deep and well supplemented with pertinent quotations.