Although this article was really well organized and showed presented a lot of useful information, I'm a little skeptical of global warming reports. I'm not saying I don't believe in global warming (who could ignore all the obvious facts?) but everyone claims to have a new finding or theory on it. Consequently, there is a lot of false information on the subject and we, as readers, have to weed through it all. Therefore, the reports that are made must stand out from the rest. I think this article could stand to have a little more "punch" to it. Obviously, there's a struggle between sounding reputable and NOT like a high school science teacher. But that is up to the author to decide. If you want to be heard, you have to know how to ... More »

The author of this story did a great job on the lead and nut graf. It was informative and pulled me in, at the same time. The information and figures are all very trustworthy because there's an abundance of sources used. Because of this, the article is a great example of strong reporting. The author did not have to rely on shades of bias or fabrication because there was clearly enough information that he gathered while interviewing and researching. There's a great balance of quotes and statistics. The combination of the two make for an easy read, even for someone (such as myself) who doesn't know a lot about the topic.

As intriguing as the title made the article seem, I was a bit disappointed. It could have been my false interpretation but I thought there was going to be more on Cancun's take on the phasing out of incandescent bulbs. Such as, what is being done in Cancun to replace the bulbs? Is it too expensive for the residents? However, it was a very informative article and I appreciate the amount of statistics that were included.

This story is one of the most well sourced articles I have read in a while. Almost every shred of information has an origin attached to it. Not only that, but they're all trustworthy sources. Therefore, I trust this publication. All the data is organized, too. I really appreciate the use of subtitles because it breaks the topics up instead of cramming them all into one long story. The author clearly researched this topic thoroughly and it shows in her precise angle the story easily follows.

Since this is a newer perspective on the infamous global warming debate, there should be much more evidence offered. There were a few sources actually cited for such frightening scientific findings. Hopefully there will be a follow-up from the writer because it's leaving me asking several questions.

I'm confused as to why this article was posted already. It seems as if it was rushed in some way, lacking a larger array of sources and getting a stronger point across. It's a really interesting topic, though. I just wish it showed more of a debate between those who are for/against the information revolution.

I'm really impressed with how much research and time was put into this article. This topic, as far as I know, doesn't seem to get as much attention as it should. And it's obvious that the author is passionate about his report (without ever revealing opinion--also, very impressive). The information was extremely in-depth and well-sourced. Because of that, it's easy to rely on the trustworthiness of this article.

As informative and in-depth as this article was, I was a little lost during most of it. I think the authors could have much more positive feedback if they worded their research in simpler, layman's terms. It kind of read like a science report, which depending on their audience, is OK. However, to be understood by a variety of people, it needs to be briefer. On the other hand, I really appreciated their organization and charts. They couldn't have done a better job grouping the data together. It's an interesting and relevant topic that I pay attention to, but sometimes I can get lost in the overwhelming data.

I may never had heard of this court fight if I didn't come across this article and I'm glad I did! This is a really interesting topic that I'll be sure to pay more attention to. The writer gave an abundance of history and research, which was extrememly helpful for me. And I'd trust the data, too. It's well-sourced and overall, very informative.

This is an excellent story. It's extrememly relevant since there is so much going on between Assange right now. Almost everytime I turn the news on, I hear something about WikiLeaks so I'm glad to have read this as a follow-up after he was arrested. I would have liked a little more background information. I have been following the story, so I understand what the issue is about. But to a new follower, ther may be some missing pieces. Personally, it's scary to think he has so much knowledge and passion to embarrass our government. I think the writer did a gread job maintaining an unbiased tone and keep the article informative.

This was a very informative piece but it felt like reading something out of a history book. I wish there was less information about the Nixon period and more about the current elections. That would have made it more relevant. Other than that, it was quite informative.

With the Katrina anniversary just passing, the tragedy has been on many peoples' minds lately so I'm really glad a thorough follow-up was conveyed. In this article, all the bases were covered and the author somehow maintained a sense of factual, unbiased reporting. Instead of being a news "lapdog" by telling the public what they want to hear (which would be easier given the heartbreak of the disaster), Sasser appears to be a "watchdog," fairly investigating the damage control.

It's a really interesting topic that was reported on. So why are there missing pieces? Such as, what is being done with the $1.3 million? Promotion? And why are half of California voters opposing Prop 23? There are several reasons claiming the benefits of it--jobs, green innovation, etc. But still, the No forces are catching up. Why? Reading this article raised several questions in my mind and unfortunately, they weren't answered.

I liked this piece because it was straight to the point. The author didn't waste time leading up to his main point nor did he go off on a tangent. All the facts were stated clearly and I didn't second guess any of the figures because they were all cited. I would have liked a little more information on what is going to happen with the case and the future of the pictures that were taken. It seems like there are a few loose ends but possibly a follow-up story is being planned.

This article was very informative and actually frightening at some points, given the honesty and nature of the subject. I'm surprised it hasn't been investigated this in-depth before so to read something like this was jaw-dropping. I was enterprising to say the least and this kind of reporting should be done more often.

This story has me lifting an eyebrow about the Tea Party even more than what it was; very informative. There must have been an outstanding amount of research put into this article. I'm glad that the author took a simple subject (fake grassroots movement), explained it, then put it in a much broader context. The focus on the Kochs was very beneficial too since they are behind a lot of this Tea Party business.

I still have one question, "How does the NATO official know where bin Laden is probably hiding?" Maybe I missed the explanation but this article would have been a little more helpful if the "how" aspect was explained. 'How does NATO know this?' for example. I mean, the sources and quotes fit well and the topic is obviously engaging. But the main topic needs to be explained better. The title says it all, "Bin Laden, deputy hiding in northwest Pakistan." OK. I'm hooked. But the enthusiasm fizzled out halfway through the story when peace talks were brought up.

To be honest, it sounds like another geek who strangely and really likes Zuckerberg wrote a "puff piece" about the guy. Not many people think much of him for cheating his friends out of money and illegibly stealing ideas. So, it's confusing why someone is sticking up for him--although it is gutsy. As for the movie critique, it didn't get interesting until the end. I felt like most of the article was rambling on. Besides my points and the fact that no one is quoted, it's an overall boring story that I probably would not recommend.

Obviously a very relevant article with less than a month away from the Nov. elections. However, throughout reading it, I kept asking myself, "Says who?". This would have been a much better piece if someone was quoted. For all I know, much of this information (although it's very thought-provoking), could be made up. And for that, I would not recommend passing it along.

It's very curious to me why the Indian government is not helping poor citizens but instead, taking away their vital income: street vending. As a resident of a country that shelters their homeless and offers countless resources, this new rule in India is quite simply, sad. They should not pretend those unfortunate people don't exist.

Usually, I shy away from reading about insurance policies because they're too long and confusing. Heck, the health care reform bill is thousands of pages in its entirety! But as a former employee of McDonald's, I'm very interested in these recent discussions. So, I read the article and I'm happy to say I didn't have to do much head scratching at all. All the information was laid out clearly. The charticle was very well done and the side notes about workers without coverage was a nice attribute as well.

First off, Sanchez is an idiot. He should have known he'd be fired after making a fool of himself on National TV. And for hosts like Stewart and Letterman to start cracking jokes about him, well that was bound to happen. But I'm curious as to what Sanchez thought of the mocking. I mean, when names like Stewart and Letterman (plus Brokaw) made fun of him, what did he do? Was there any word on Sanchez apologizing to CNN or asking for his job back? What are his plans now? I'd like a little more follow-up information, please.

I'm not sure why this article was written in the first place. If I wanted to read a review of the documentary, I would have Googled one. But there is too much opinion and unbelievably boring ramblings in this article that any morsel of data mentioned, hard to trust. The lack of quotes from experts was a big mistake as well.

I'm glad to have read this story because I had not heard much about the AZ debates in a while. I think its relevant and very important to cover the DREAM Act even if it never quite takes off. Why? Because staying informed about the government's decisions and the people's opinions is what drives communication. Also, dividing this article into several sections (A Threat To Their Dream?) was smart. With an abundance of information like this, it's best to organize and label it.

If I hadn't read this article, I wouldn't have known "environmental injustice" exists, mostly because it was kept a secret for so long. However, I think now is the perfect time to dig this up and further investigate. We have so many green supporters that it's hard to NOT make this a relevant issue. Every quote, piece of historical data and resource can be rightly justified because they all fit nicely into the story. I liked all the background information, too. It helped fill me understand the entire issue.