Solid piece on a relevant topic. The audio, is, like most NPR pieces, well done.

The editor in chief of a right-wing news organization editorializes and twists facts to justify an act that was already apologized for as wrong. Further, it continues fear-mongering and and confusing issues. This is the sort of ‘journalism’ that represents a failure of the Fourth Estate.

Solid idea to follow up with some questions raised about an investigative report.

Solid, anecdotal report, backed up by one study.

A call for action from the newspaper to reform how they report. Solid work from the ombudsman.

This may be The Daily Show – but it's quality journalism. A discussion with the person who has lead the "death panels" march is honest in a way that no other news source has or would be.

All this does is repeat claims made in the book. There is no effort to independently verify the facts, and the source giving them is of questionable quality. Further, this is little more than a press-release for the book, giving you just enough to entice you to buy the full thing.

Provides a lot of facts and figures, but offers no interviews, or opposing view points.

Solid report that sums the close of the election. Nothing particularly innovative here, but wraps up the election nicely.

Good photo story about journalists being denied access. The photos are well done. More background and links to the greater story would have been nice.

Great overview of the Afgan election. Short, but doesn't need to be too long.

Typical fear-mongering from the extreme right. Flat out lies in places.

WARNING: Gruesome photos. This is photojournalism after the fact. Photos of the event would have been far better.

Solid photojournalism of 'everyday life' in Kabul. It's really interesting for folks who have never been there to see it.