Journalists should constantly question themselves and their biases. This thorough review of a new book challenges them to do that. Can anyone refute any part of this book? If so, let's hear it.

Gusty piece that goes against the conventional wisdom and takes on the environmental establishment, which the media should do more often.

Great example of the power of the internet to expand and enhance traditional journalism. Highly relevant topic, with strong arguments from both sides. The format is excellent, allowing time for feedback and rebuttal. Mainstream journalists lament the decline in their numbers and resources, believing that they are the only ones capable of imparting truth and wisdom to the masses. However, the yeasty democratization of journalism on the internet proves them wrong. The comments section here, all by itself, makes a compelling case for the affirmative.

Courageous investigation of a controversial case with racial, political and religious sensitivities. That's what good journalism should be all about, but too many reporters and editors shy away from such stories due to political correctness and undue fear of offending someone.

Yes. Focuses on a topic that hasn't been written about much, engagingly personalizes it, thoroughly researches it, and effectively nationalizes it. If you've been wondering why your wine glasses now come out of the dishwasher with spots, here's the best explanation you'll find. Is this piece wrong on any counts? If so, let's hear from the other side -- with solid evidence. This piece strikes me as yet another example of the unintended consequences of zealous environmentalism.

Grim reading, especially if you have aging parents, but this is a first-rate example of sustained investigative journalism that will surely result in changes in laws and regulations.

The Poynter Institute consistently provides excellent analyses of what's happening in the media world today. This is a good discussion of the current "pay wall" debate, citing the Spokane Spokesman-Review as a working model. Well worth reading for those concerned about journalism's future. (Disclosure: I used to work for Nelson Poynter when I was at Congressional Quarterly, owned by the St. Petersburg Times. And the Washington News Council did a landmark report for the Spokesman-Review in 2007. See the WNC archives.)

Powerful first-person storytelling. Paints a vivid picture of the immigration dilemma, with its very real human and legal challenges. Should make everyone think -- which is one of the most important roles of good journalism. Kudos, Kaitlin!

Strong opinion, backed with facts and sources.

Yes. Strong opinion and provocative perspective based on fact. However, Brooks omits a major reason for lower trust in the power elites -- lack of accountability. Whether business, government, journalism, law, medicine, nonprofits or other institutions, leaders who screw up are not always held sufficiently and publicly accountable. Result: No trust.

This is a way of encouraging quality journalism by asking the public to vote on the fairness, accuracy, balance and ethics of two "investigative" television reports.

Yes. The author is respected and knowledgeable, and his recommendations are right on target.