This satirical look at the over-interpretation of local election results is witty if, well, unsubtle. It certainly punctures the election-results spin fiesta.

Ultimately this piece is nothing but an ad hominem attack that ignores any and all issues that might be relevant.

Even an opinion piece should pass the smell test. This one doesn't. When I tried to verify some of the cited facts, I found that they didn't hold water. For instance, "official data" do not show that temperatures have been falling since 1998, although they do show that 1998 was warmer than subsequent years. I couldn't locate a source that said Arctic ice increased in 2002 -- everything I found said the opposite. And has the Global Warming Petition been signed by 31,000 ... More »

This piece tells the truth about a highly misleading "fact" that has gotten wide circulation.

This story accurately reports how the McCain campaign completely ignored publicly available information about their opponent. When they discovered their oversight, they tried to blame their incompetence on the media, implying that the information was suppressed. The story makes clear that the interview was not just available but actively promoted by the paper.

This is a clear, factual report on a topic that desperately needs it. A wide variety of sources help answer the question of the real level of risk from registration and voter fraud.

This story is so bad that the executive director of the organization in question issued a press release addressing it <http: covenanthouseak.org="" press_release_9_4_08.pdf="">. Apparently the author couldn't be bothered to seek comment from the most obvious source. This story has damaged my trust in the Washington Post.

This is an important topic that received disappointingly shallow coverage, even for a "Q & A" presentation. Obviously, the interview format doesn't lend itself to multiple sources, but maybe a "round-table" style article would have allowed more perspectives in. There are plenty of strongly-opinioned people in this field, after all.

In an age when "nuance" is almost as dangerous a word as "intellectual," this story does a fair job of explaining what Sen. Obama has said and how it's become a source of controversy. I would have liked more context about policies of past administrations, and the lack of comment from the McCain campaign is a disappointment.

Pretty good coverage of the traction false rumors about Obama get, how it affects perceptions of people, and what he and his campaign are doing about it. That said, it doesn't go into great depth about any of these points. I would prefer more about the historical context and why the internet changes the landscape so much.

This story is at best only moderately informative. It misrepresents the contents of the video in at least one key respect (the officer does not ask the man to get out of the car before he refuses to sign the ticket). It doesn't say anything about what a Utah traffic ticket looks like (does it clearly show the violation? does the signature area make clear that it is not an admission of guilt?). The author says that a warning was legally required, but no code is cited and Utah ... More »

An informative story about the issue, although lacking a bit in context (past and present standards for OTC drugs for children) and it would have been nice to hear from a source that wasn't directly involved in the issue.

This is an informative look at how the NYT chose its language in one particular controversial news story. The introspection is not terribly deep, but it offers insight that would otherwise be unavailable.

It's no accident that this story is headlined by one of those leading rhetorical questions intended to suggest without support. The story seems to be "writer claims censorship, no evidence to support claim." It's telling that the reporter sought comment from the Clinton campaign, but not, apparently, from ABC. If a top exec says political pressure is being applied, shouldn't there be at least an attempt to get a comment from the company? Everything comes down to unsupported claims ... More »

This is an excellent story that covers an important topic which has generated a lot of political heat. My main complaint is that it doesn't go far enough to highlight the inconsistency between the broad political stance ("earmarks bad") and the individual actions ("more money for hospitals in my district is good").

This story seems to rule out all the obvious statistical biases that might explain its curious observation. As a Gallup report, it doesn't present any other sources, nor does it offer any theories that aren't covered by the data it presents. A followup that examines more possible explanations would be especially interesting.

This story is weaker than I would like: it leaves too many questions unanswered. Why did Gonzalez need to clarify his July testimony before the Senate with information that was already given to the House in June? How does the Justice Department policy relate to the Hatch Act?

This story (first of a series) describes in detail how Vice President Cheney uses his office in a radically different way than any VP before him. It offers valuable insight into the way he exercises his power, regardless of whether you agree with his approach.

The thing missing from this story is any consideration of how we got to this state. The same rules that allowed Mr Pearson to magnify his damages were put in place because individuals otherwise had no leverage at all against abusive corporations. In other words, the system is broken in this way in an attempt to balance the fact that it is broken in other ways.

Hmm, can I bring "disciplined taste, historical and theoretical knowledge and a fairly deep sense of the author's entire body of work" to this review? No. But the author seems to overlook an essential step in the process of getting published, whether as a critic or a creator: editors. Schickel isn't published because he has been anointed with some magical fairy dust that made him one of the elite; he's published because the free market (in the form of his editors) chose him. It's the ... More »

This story is fine as far as it goes, but it lacks the depth it deserves.

This piece cites several engineering sources claiming that the reconstructed levees are inadequate. The US Army Corps of Engineers acknowledges that the work is not yet where they would like. Pretty much the only question left unanswered is why the general public is unaware of the true situation.

This piece combines opinion with factual reporting in a reasonable fashion. If legislators and judges are making medical decisions, at the very least those decisions should be supported by facts. The author argues that the studies cited (indirectly) by Justice Kennedy either don't support the conclusions he draws or have problems sustaining their own conclusions. My biggest complaint is that it is hard to tell from this piece exactly which studies mentioned were actually cited by ... More »

This is a good presentation of facts about a practice that may or may not skirt the line of what is legal. For that reason, I would have liked some more information about exactly where that line is drawn. I would also have liked some context about whether anything like this was done by previous administrations.

This is an excellent overview of "fake news" progressing from hoax to propaganda and satire. If I can fault it, it would be for its failure to cover one particular source of fake news that is common today: "commentators" in the Limbaugh vein who say they are entertainers, not journalists. This cover allows them to spread stories that are misleading or false with impunity.

I don't usually rate opinion pieces here, because the usual standards of fact-based reporting don't apply. This piece disappoints me in part because I think it confuses two separate issues. The right has been poisoning the word "elite" by redefining it as "people who want to make your decisions for you" (instead of "people who are the best at what they do"). That gives them a platform to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them by calling them a name. The Bush administration's valuing ... More »

This story is written in a journalistic style, but it is very biased reporting. Beginning with the second sentence, the story abandons objectivity by suggesting that a verdict in a civil trial is "proof." Also, the story quotes the plaintiff's lawyer directly, but has no direct quotes from anyone representing Wyeth (although it does attribute statements to Wyeth).

This story covers the public reaction to publication of news about scientific research. The story makes clear that some of the reporting was incorrect or misleading, but it isn't clear how much blame should be laid on the headline-writing punsters. The reporter lets the sources speak for themselves, for the most part, and seems to give a balanced view.

Is there much to this story that goes beyond the headline? Not really: one quotation, a paraphrase, and some numbers without sources. The author clearly sides against the telcos, but doesn't present any evidence to back up his assertion that their message "isn't necessarily true."