this is awful journalism. This story is regurgitation of US propaganda. The FBI has been concocting stories to keep the so called War on Terror alive for several years now.

This is an opinion piece. The author has written a book which provides an authoritative underpinning in fact for this opinion.

It's fine to go ahead and talk about this issue. I can see where the people would feel distressed by the government decision. However, it is nothing at all like the controversy over building the Mosque, actually expanding the mosque into a center for a variety of activities, including a restaurant, a gym and other facilities. This is an example of the government interfering in the details of people's lives. The problem in New York is related to racism and general anti-Muslim sentiment that are continually inflamed in the the US by the press. The new law in Cairo affects practitioners of the main religion, and is undermining the capacity of the population at large to express certain traditions in their own way. The ... More »

It's ok. It doesn't give any real context other than historical - they have done this before. Clearly states narrow facts.

This is quality journalism. It brings to light a perspective on a rather tedious and stressful story that most Americans don't have any knowledge of whatsoever. It asserts opinions, but essentially processes new information from a perspective that is very real to much of the world though unfamiliar to Americans

This is quality journalism. It takes an objective perspective towards events not biased by a desire for a certain outcome.

This is excellent. It fleshes out a comparison oft mentioned, but which few people know enough details to really grasp one way or the other. It uses facts and insight to review events from a unique perspective and in greater depth than we often see.

It seems extremely biased towards the US narrative. No mention is made of numerous statements that the emphasis on the military is way out of proportion to the actual level of resistance, violence or crime, which, according to many reports, are minimal. It may work as a review of 'what everyone is saying' but it provides no perspective.

Very good. Juan brought out of number of aspects of the situation internal to Pakistan that may affect US-Pakistan relations/

Great article. It's about time someone responded to all the crazy spin on Iran with some straight talk about what is known and what is reasonable to assume on that basis.

It's middling quality. It gives the public story and timeline. Some aspects of the story which don't really support the 'govt line' are mentioned and others not. They talk about the President of Yemen needing assistance in state building at the end. It sounds like 'here's a good guy who needs our help'. But, really, given the disorder in his country, maybe he's not a good guy. Maybe he's part of the problem.

Good piece of research. Makes it's point while showing both sides. Gives examples and research.

Absolutely. This is quality Journalism because a reporter who has actually spent time in Yemen (as well as Iraq and Afghanistan) is relating the reality of what is really going on there. He also points out obvious context issues that are generally ignored by the press and the government, like the fact that the government is overreaction to a FAILED (incompetent) attempt.

Yes. It shows an interesting perspective on a very important subject and causes me to want to know more about it.

This is excellent because it gives the facts as they have been established and explains the critical underpinnings of the argument. Neither mainstream nor alternative press have clarified this issue so far. Thank you Mother Jones.

They brush off the anti-nuclear arguments so the piece is very one sided. Those who might advocate for the other sided are demeaned and dismissed in an unfair way. I'm disappointed in the guardian.

This story does describe changes to US strategy in the region. However, it doesn't give any context or alternative views as to the efficacy of this plan.

It isn't good journalism because it states a lot of opinions but only in the last paragraphs provides any meaningful context or information about their validity. The opportunistic reversal of opinion by officials is not just important to congress but to all of us. Focusing on it covers the facts of the matter.

Juan stays on top of events in the Middle East and South West Asia. This piece is pretty straight forward, and preempts any hystrionic spin on the issue. This is a long time problem. I'm happy to hear that Nawaz Sharif prefers leaving Zardarai in power to another coup. It makes me hopeful that he is willing to abide by the election results instead of trying to manipulatie the situation in his favor.

Yes. This is is hands on, grass roots journalism. The picture here is important, and rarely considered. Notice, few people have bothered to read this piece and comment. This is the tip of the iceberg. It's going to get worse

Yes. It is factual and reveals a unique perspective on a generally invisible issue that is very important.

Normally I like the Christian Science Monitor, but this is bad journalism because it is misleading. The article leaves out more than it tells. It paints a picture that seems coherent. But in fact, the missing context and details tell a very different story than the one here.

McGovern tells the whole story. He covers both sides, admits his bias, and defends it with facts.

If only writers in the US were able to be so honest!

THis is excellent journalism of a cerain type. Hilterman is extremely reasonable. He presents the situation in all it's vulnerability with an agenda. He gives both a personal perspective, and a global perspective. He doesn't jump to conclusions regarding motivation of events that we don't have clear information on, but makes a reasonable assessment based on the facts which he also presents.

I think it is quality journalism because it shows that there are two sides to the story. This shouldn't be such a big deal, but most stories on Iran paint them as demons with no reasonable perspective. This story hints at that perspective, but at least states enough facts so that the reader can draw their own conclusion.

This is poor journalism. The piece is written from a very us-centric/west-centric point of view. It is just one more piece hammering on Iran to do what WE want OR ELSE. This is not a viable diplomatic perspective and encourages the reader to buy a very one-sided point of view without question. It assumes that the US and the Western European countries are the only ones that matter, and there is no other point of view. US, Europe, Russia and China do not have a consensus on this issue as the article implies. By misrepresenting the context, it supports a jingoistic, narrow perspective that has been achieving increasingly negative results for the last 30 years. Moreover, he reader is denied information necessary to make an ... More »

Juan covers events continuously.

This is an opinion piece with validating facts. I don't know if I agree, but it clearly lays out the strategy the author is recommending and a logical reason to use it. As such it is well done. I don't know anything about the website it comes from.

Juan's take on affairs is insightful, and shows a perspective not covered at all in the main stream. This makes his work 'balanced' in the sense that it balances the so called balanced coverage that obscures the truth of what the real affect of events on people is.

I think we need more of this kind of journalism. The language is harsh, but the point is well taken. Unfortunately, we see news judged by the level of language, ie. balanced vs unbalanced. But we don't usually see it evaluated based on the validity of the facts and reference to the real consequence of the broad view.