This is commentary posing as news reporting. I am saddened to see that my old newspaper did not properly label this piece as commentary. Had it been properly labeled it would be harder to find journalistic failures. But the fact is that all points of view are not given equal weight in this piece; there is relatively little reporting on the views of the proponents of stricter enforcement. There are serious holes in this piece, which appears to be written from a point of view of one reporter. Moreover, the reporter doesn't even answer questions raised by the reported facts--for instance at one point the reporter points to the drop in murders and violence as evidence that people in the country illegally are not a problem. But ... More »

Like a great many of the Asian Times articles, this one is written from "a point of view." The story provides some valuable insights, but it is not the whole story. Only when a reader understands the writer's viewpoint is it possible to understand the whole piece. Looking at a story like this is like trying to understand the difference between looking at the Grand Canyon from Bright Angel Lodge and looking at it from an airplane at 30,000 feet. In one you see more details of a particular area; in the other you see the overwall picture minus the detail.

In-depth stories about our economic situation are not only good reads, they are essential to understanding our way forward. Education of the public is always the first role newspapers should play.

This is hardly journalism -- it is a blog. It is an interesting blog, filled with personal opinion and well worth reading. However there is no real attempt to explain anything to the reader; on the contrary the purpose is to solicit to viewpoint from the reader. This is chumming bait when fishing -- interesting infotainment, but not solid journalism

Any story must keep the reader intrested from headline and opening paragraph to the last sentence. If it does not do that, the reader loses interest and goes elsewhere. Nice pacing and good visualization help keep the reader intrested in this piece that originally appeared in the New York Times. I'm not certain I would consider this an outside-the-beltway story. It is something of a puff-piece, but is quite readable if a little lacking in balance.

This is a well-written piece, with good turns of phrases and an intensive attention to local people who went to Washington with Bush or served under him there. It was localized quite nicely and kep the reader's attention.

This lengthy think piece delves into the complex India-US relationship.

Nice presentation. This is such a complicated issue that no presentation can thoroughly cover the issue. This goes far to doing that in a limited time, however.

This pushes the light beam of our knowledge just a little further.

Short and pith as are most BBC pieces, it provides the essentials.

This is a nice "think piece" with personal flourishes and observations common to both the reader and the writer common. There is good visualization. The reader keeps reading.

The story is concise, filled with facts and comments from people who seem to be in a position to know. The use of unattributed statements is perhaps to be regretted, but seems inevitable in this kind of story where a name -- published on-line -- could easily get that person killed.

One of the major questions about the new administration is "what are they going to do about Afghanistan?" The Post apparently provides the outlines of the answer, moving our knowledge of the subject ahead. It's a good "beat" of the opposition thatshows both enterprise and the quality of the Post's sources.

This is a thoughtful view of an ongoing process from a writer who has access to current and often inside information. One unanswered question -- perhaps ignored is a better way of saying it -- is whether a third "moderate party based on Republican principles" will rise up to replace the ever-right-moving Republican party structure that Brooks outlines here. He has not taken into account the possibility that the Republican party he outlines as being increasingly irrelevant to much of the party becomes so out of touch that it is simply falls off the edge to be replaced by something new. Once upon a time there was a Whig party....

Very little has been written about the Pakistani effort. "The Pakistanis aren't doing their part" is often seen in quotes. This story examines one of the Pakistani efforts and while it is not all-encompasing of their effort, it does give a mid-level look at a side of the war American readers have not seen. The tunnel issue, similar to the work of the Viet Cong in Vietnam, is an interesting sidelight for those who relish information about the tactics and techniques of this war. There is no doubt the writers had to put themselves at some risk -- and that too has to be factored into the mix. To risk your life to bring out the facts is worthy of note.

Looking at truth and lies is what the media should do -- and that's what the reporter did here.

There is no question that an Al-Qaeda tape was not released and that's news of a sort. However the writers' insistence that a release was shortstopped by intelligence agencies is questionable, at best. Jihadi tapes are still being released, perhaps not in the numbers before, but they are still out there. Many can be found and downloaded at http://clearinghouse.infovlad.net/forumdisplay.php?f=2. Jihadica at http://www.jihadica.com tracks much of the jihadi releases and is a good resource to understand what is happening in that field. To illustrate, I was background downloading a 40-minute, professional quality, video for the collection of a major American educational institution from two sites while I was writing this. There ... More »

Reporters cover "what was said" fairly well. They don't usually do a great job at "what was not said." This piece fills that hole. The items selected -- and there are probably more that could have been brought up -- are legitimate questions that were never explored publicly during the campaign. The writer has tried to give some insight into where the candidates stand, drawing inferences from other statements and positions. The selection of those statements and positions gives the story an "editorial" feeling, yet the accuracy of the selections suggests some even-handedness. The story fills out some major holes in network/newspaper/news magazine coverage. At a minimum it is food for thought.

This is an unusual story, interesting but hardly earth-shaking. Nonetheles it has the human intrest element of kids and their disappointment because of the actions of an adult.

The story, from a journalistic standpoint, is illustrative of an important point -- the involvement of important people, even if that involvement is peripheral, makes the story. It is the person -- not the act -- being covered here. The story doesn't have any real relevance to Obama personally, but it must be reported because his name came up. The story was reported. This story says the senator did not even know about his aunt's presence -- which appears to be true -- and the reporting raises the question of whether there was a political motove -- an October surprise -- in the fact that the issue was raised by anonymous federal officials. The story seems even-handed and gives voters what they need to know as they decide to vote. ... More »

Too often journalists crowd around the winners and eschew the losing side. From the catchy lede on, this story moves fluidly to tell a tale of impending sorrow and some would even say bravery in the face of looming defeat. At the same time, the story suggests why the "loser "is behind, and the viewpoints of the loser's supporters. The reader can experience the mindset of the loser's supporters, and perhaps in having that mindset laid bare can better understand why the "loser" is -- a loser. The story is about process -- loss and impending loss and how people deal with that process. The people involved are not playing with a winning hand, as they and the world see it. This story is about efforts at turning around what appears ... More »

With the perceived danger the country faces from a nuclear WMD -- and the massive amounts of money spent on what appear to be detectors that may not detect -- this story fulfills the responsibility of American journalism. The article brings to light a couple of issues taxpayers need to know about -- how their money is being spent and whether it is being spent wisely.

For those who enjoy wonderful turns of phrases, George Will is always a must-read in the paper. The man knows how to use language to the best advantage, whether he is employing words as a tool or a weapon. In this column he skips lightly from one subject to another, but with a broad focus. If he is opinionated -- and he is -- his viewpoints are usually worth pondering.

"Situationers" -- stories that explain the current situation and what lies behind the obvious news -- are often difficult to write without showing bias. This was done exceptionally well to explain a situation that much of the country experienced. The story added some insight to the obvious.

This story "looks ahead." That is always a good thing in journalism, where most stories report on history, on what has happened.

The article, and the films linked to it, are interesting and provide a different look into the Sadr City issue -- something seldom reviewed by media. Sometimes the pieces of the story just don't track well. Nonethless it is a valuable look at the situation -- if a look with a point of view. Accuracy -- in anything -- from Iraq is hard to judge. In the main points it seems on track, but the devil is in the details. The main problem, if there is a problem, lies in balance. In respect to balance the phrase that comes to mind is "good try, no cigar."

This represents a good "breaking news" story that is complete and tracks well for most readers. It may not win a Pultzer, but it represents a good day's work, answering most questions that can be answered at this juncture.