No., it is poor journalism because the authors fail to mention except indirectly that the Social security trust fund right now has more than two trillion dollars in it. Those two trillion dollars are invested in treasury bonds, i.e. the money is a loan to the US government which uses it to pay for wars and bank bailouts and a multiplicity of things. md like all loans it earned interest. That SS is paying out more than it is collecting in 2010 should surprise no one. The country is in recession with a BLS U6 real rate of unemployment of 16%. Social Security taxes are collected from employed workers. And, of course, there is more paid out than collected in high unemployment years. That's why there is a trust fund.

It's extraordinary reporting b/c self-censorship by woman journalist is IMO never acknowledged. Barker used the opportunity Logan's prominence presented to critique her profession. The public is informed. Brava.

Yes, it's relevant, newsworthy and includes good info. But the piece is missing an editor to say e.g., "Who is the "we" in this quote": The truth is that many of us still do not really want to know - because, if we did, we would have to do something about it" Or, clarify the Madoff, Picard, NY Times section.

It's a polemic not a news story. And a poorly written one at that. While I completely agree with the thrust of the article, it contained too few supporting facts or sources to be considered a news report. For example he says, a Gov. Walker bill is a "business coddling initiative" but fails to include any info on how business is coddled.

What is missing from this report is the effect of commodity "speculation", i.e. trading, on price. Given what we now know about massive influence of hedge fund and investment bank gambling on oil prices among other commodities, including info on how this form of speculation is effecting food prices would have been valuable.

No. Unclear opening. Six paragraphs in and the reader still doesn't know what "provisions" are. The President is said to object but author provides no details, says Obama is "objecting (how?) and Isn't an objection a complaint? A whole paragraph devoted ACLU criticism. followed by a statement that the ACLU "interpreted Obama's statement favorably". A mess of an article.

Careful detailed reporting. A useful print story. A mention of the documentary Gasland which deals with the direct fracking polluting of the water in Dimon, PA would have been appropriate.

The thrust of the story is Jon Stewart's role in effecting the passage of a bill. And a significant aspect of this critique was the failure of MSM to cover the story. The piece could have asked more pointed questions of MSM spokespeople about this failure.

The links to price charts are great. And the price differences are amazing.

The reporter uses biased language. e.g., describing the mortgage crisis which brought the US economy to the brink of depression as a "fracas" and suggesting through demeaning language that there is something illegitimate about lawyers using courts to depose mortgage service employees or even bringing suit for people about to lose their homes.

No it's not good journalism. Since the NY Times is a US publication, the reader is entitled to a US context e.g., Does the US maintain equivalent aluminum toxic waste reservoirs? What do scientist say about the dangers? What are Hungarian critics saying?

Yes, Bernstein does more than simply record the "facts" as supplied by gov't. authorities, e.g. "Lawyers challenging the stops in several deportation cases questioned the rationale that they were aimed at border traffic. Government data obtained in litigation shows that at least three-quarters of those arrested since 2006 had been in the country more than a year."

Although the author's viewpoint is very clear and well supported, it would have been valuable to know what justification the justices used to decide that no warrants were needed to install the GPS devices

It isn't journalism at all. It reads as though written by the Obama administration. No sources cited, no evidence of harm other than that claimed by the Obama administration. Reporters Without borders which claims to represent a free press could at a minimum have checked out some of the documents before attacking Assange. At his post leak conference Assange said that the data had been organized and could be searched. Did the authors of this attack actually look at any of the data? And justifying their attack by claiming that an administration that plans to continue a nine year war is already under pressure and doesn't need the pressure the Document dump is bringing is shocking/

Having read Danny's books and seen his DVDs I know he knows a lot. More source and expert citation would have made the financial meltdown ongoing disaster case stronger.

Yes, the author provides plenty of facts to back up her charges.

Not quality journalism. It falls into the he said/she said category. However the HS/SS doesn't hold when only the Israeli side of the UN sanction of Iran is reported. It's an important story weakly told.

The story would have been more effective and useful with info on the distribution of subsidies, which industries, which countries, etc. And some info on how Obama squares pledges of reduction with increased nuclear and fossil fuel subsidies would have improved the piece.

Yes and No. Ebert does a good job of laying out the film's thesis. But is it a good film as a film? Nevertheless I'm sure I'll see it.

I'm not sure that it qualifies as journalism given tthe lack of sources. It's unfortunate that Kall didn't elaborate on Bayh's manipulation of ballot access rules to ensure there would be no primary..

The story is well sourced. The rumour that Geitner may be on his way out could have been elaborated more. The explanations of CDS, etc are intelligible. So it's quality journalism

much detail related to the failure of the US gov't to establish priorities. A gov't which can authorize a $700 billion bailout in a few days should be able to find a way to handle the question who pays the cost of acute care for dangerously injured victims of an earthquake. This story details the failure and its causes.

More a scare story than a factual report. The author does not even bother to identify the source of the "erroneous report" except as the WWF. For all the info given the report could have come from the World Wrestling Federation.

A vacuous piece with little insightful information. Given the author's position as staff political reporter for the New Yorker some background on US near continuous involvement in Haitian crises would be expected.

No. The story is poorly written, weakly sourced and full of hedging phrases which appear designed to confuse. The fudging of facts is rampant. For example "extraordinary rendition is defined as " a tactic of capturing militant suspects". a phrase containg no concrete information. Or Obama is said to have stated "early on" that he was closing the "foreign detention network. When did Obama say this? And what are some examples of the Foreign Detention Centers?

More facts, less author opinion would have strenthened the piece. how about names of "intractable consevative democrats", "activists" for whom "Reid is a whipping boy". Blind quotes from "progressive strategists" does not a serious piece of journalism make. "

No. A great deal of begging the question despite his calls for adhering to a scientific view. And his lumping economic caused terroristic actions, i.e., Israel's occupation of Palestine and biblebelt buy-in to free market propaganda as a result of belief in religion isn't supported by his exposition.

It's a fun piece of journalism for the already informed. If you haven't already read Michael Pollan, it would would have liitle meaning. And a little more detail about Big A'g's influence on the farmers showing up to protest Pollan would have made for a better story.

Well done story. However some comparisons with US circumstances would have helped. Holland has a populations of 15 million the US 20 times that. How would that effect coverage? What kinds of innovation do Dutch insurance companies use to compete. No examples were given.

Info on which Dems object to Specter's deal with Reid. but no context or info on what perks come with committee chair. The author should have provided some info on why Appropriations is a powerful committee