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 ... 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.