Mike_hs2_medium

Mike LaBonte

Founding Member (since April 2006)
Help

Lack of political will prevents us from solving some major problems like unsustainable use of resources and expanding human inequality. We need fair elections and news we can trust to find our political will. When I'm not busy making a living I try to work on that.

About Mike Help
Location: Haverhill, Massachusetts, United States
Occupation: Electronic Signal Integrity Engineer, Cisco Systems
Interests: energy, elections
Expertise: software development
Host  (Mike hosts these topics) Help
Background Help
Journalism: None
Education: College graduate
News: 60-90 minutes a day
Internet: 90 minutes a day or more
Languages: English-only
Politics: Center
Age: 50-64
Gender: Male
Contact Info Help
Email:
Address: Haverhill, MA, US
Last Visit: Apr 6, 2012 - 6:14 AM PDT
Last Edit: Jan 27, 2010 - 6:37 AM PST

This profile can be seen by everyone, including search engines. Help
| Network | Web Page | |
Mike posted this story - Jun 19, 2011
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Jun 15, 2011
Mike's Rating
3.7

They tend to give a fair amount of hard evidence, although this story falls short of providing a spreadsheet that adds up the claimed $400,000. Great job getting the Republican side of the story, but some claims about Democrats are unsupported. It probably needs more depth on the viewpoint of candidates who are called fake but claim they are not.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
NT Rating: 3.7 | See All NT Reviews »
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Jun 13, 2011
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Apr 10, 2011
Mike's Rating
3.1

This story would be better if it had more depth regarding the election night return documents. If these match the final results then the issue is settled. But this story only mentions that the SoS wants them public, and I don't understand why the reporter couldn't get them for the story.

See Full Review » (10 answers)
NT Rating: 3.4 | See All NT Reviews »
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Apr 10, 2011
Mike's Rating
2.7

This article has only the bullet items of the story, lacking depth and initiative. It reports that the GAB will look at the election night returns, but the reporter apparently has not simply asked for those returns (they are public records).

The media should be investigating this election, not a government board.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
NT Rating: 2.7 | See All NT Reviews »
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Apr 9, 2011
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Apr 8, 2011
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Mar 29, 2011
Mike's Rating
2.4

This article barely advances the story, mostly leaving dangling questions. It is not biased toward one side, but is entirely short on substance overall.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
NT Rating: 2.4 | See All NT Reviews »
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Mar 29, 2011
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Mar 9, 2011
Mike's Rating
2.5

This begins almost like a single source press release, but adds a second source to describe the market. Little depth overall, but worthwhile to introduce this business concept.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
NT Rating: 2.5 | See All NT Reviews »
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Mar 9, 2011
Mike commented on this review – Feb. 2, 2011
Mike LaBonte
3.3
(NT Rating: 3.1)
Reviewed by Mike LaBonte - Feb. 2, 2011

I like the factual nature of the study. The main thing that knocks this story down a notch is omitting WSJ's viewpoint on if and why they have carried so many climate denier viewpoints.

Mike La Bonte Comment:

I’ll agree that “global warming skeptic” is a better term, but is “climate change skeptic” even better? Personally I am hoping that human activity can affect our climate, because if we can’t, then long term I would say we are going to see some ugly ... More »

Mike reviewed this story - Feb 2, 2011
Mike's Rating
3.3

I like the factual nature of the study. The main thing that knocks this story down a notch is omitting WSJ's viewpoint on if and why they have carried so many climate denier viewpoints.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
NT Rating: 3.1 | See All NT Reviews »
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Jan 11, 2011
Mike's Rating
4.0

Good research on very relevant topic, with tons of links to sources. But it still has to be called opinion because it makes predictions. As is often the case with investigative pieces it is short on viewpoints because one side (the Pentagon) apparently has little to say.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
NT Rating: 4.0 | See All NT Reviews »
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Jan 11, 2011
Mike reviewed this story - Jan 3, 2011
Mike's Rating
2.7

The timing and very selective use of evidence in this opinion piece expose it's strongly partisan viewpoint. While it raises a good topic of discussion, the obvious bias and failure to include numeric evidence leave it hardly moving the ball further than previous shallow discussions of senatorial cloture. It does provide some useful context regarding secret holds.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
NT Rating: 2.6 | See All NT Reviews »
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Jan 3, 2011
Mike's Rating
3.7
See Full Review » (10 answers)
NT Rating: 3.7 | See All NT Reviews »
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Jan 3, 2011
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Jan 3, 2011
Mike's Rating
3.1
See Full Review » (9 answers)
NT Rating: 3.0 | See All NT Reviews »
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Jan 3, 2011
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Dec 22, 2010
Mike's Rating
4.3
See Full Review » (10 answers)
NT Rating: 4.1 | See All NT Reviews »
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Dec 20, 2010
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Nov 23, 2010
Mike's Rating
4.1

With phrases like "I also hate waste" and "I loathe them all" this is a little too first person. But Rapier is quite an expert on this topic and this article is both fair and informative. Statements from Exxon and others make for very interesting information.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
NT Rating: 4.1 | See All NT Reviews »
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Nov 23, 2010
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Nov 22, 2010
Mike's Rating
3.8

This blog post reads mostly like a news report, with good research and balanced interviews. In one section a previous work by the author is quoted as a first person opinion source, but the followup conveys counter-responses fairly well. His previous blog post on the subject also shows extensive research work.

I am quite familiar with the RCV voter confusion problem and the recent Oakland RCV election. Williams' voter confusion analysis looks correct.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
NT Rating: 3.4 | See All NT Reviews »
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Nov 22, 2010
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Nov 18, 2010
Mike's Rating
3.6

This historical perspective on today's media fairness issues is a welcome addition. Key claims are not well proven, however: that Olbermann "doesn't actually make things up", with the implication that FNC hosts do.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
NT Rating: 3.4 | See All NT Reviews »
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Nov 17, 2010
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Nov 12, 2010
Mike's Rating
4.3

This has excellent detail, sources and fairness, as election stories go. Sources are carefully attributed throughout, with the exception of the last three paragraphs. For some reason it is unusual for election stories to give the make and model of equipment used, and explain critical details like where vote data is stored and reloaded from. This story has all of that and more.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
NT Rating: 4.3 | See All NT Reviews »
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Nov 12, 2010
Mike reviewed this story - Nov 6, 2010
Mike's Rating
3.9

Although this is single viewpoint reporting, other sources are linked.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
NT Rating: 4.1 | See All NT Reviews »
Mike posted this story - Oct 8, 2010
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Oct 4, 2010
Mike's Rating
4.2

This is an unusual level of depth for a story about the mechanics of elections. The many sources and sidebar graphics show a great level of effort. One anonymous source is used in the part about the logic and accuracy test. Much of this information has already appeared as news in the Aspen Times, but this compilation presents the big picture more succinctly.

Disclosure: Mike is involved in this story (review not included in overall rating). Help
See Full Review » (11 answers)
NT Rating: 3.8 | See All NT Reviews »
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Oct 4, 2010
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Oct 1, 2010
Mike's Rating
3.1

To get something out of this you have to follow the links. The story introduces the key concepts and tells you where to find out more. In that regard it's ok, but you can be just slightly mislead reading only this story.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
NT Rating: 3.4 | See All NT Reviews »
Mike posted and reviewed this story - Oct 1, 2010
Mike reviewed this story - Sep 25, 2010
Mike's Rating
4.4

The documentation is excellent as usual, and FactCheck remains neutral.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
NT Rating: 4.3 | See All NT Reviews »
(Beta)

Levels & Stats

Member LevelHelp
4.5 avg.
4.5 avg.
Activity
5.0 avg.
Experience
3.1 avg.
Ratings
3.9 avg.
Transparency
3.7 avg.
Validation
5.0 avg.

StatsHelp
Reviews
2,228
Answers
18,668
Comments
3
Ratings Received
344
Number of Raters
72
Ratings Given
505

Mike's Widget

Add this widget to your site »