Lots of unattributed judgment, mostly in areas where the author seems to be attempting to stir up trouble. "Clinton's straight talk has set off some speculation that she might be trying to raise her profile and influence in [the] administration"; "Her manner is said to sometimes arouse concern in the State Department's regional bureaus"; "Clinton's comments ... have raised eyebrows". All of the quotes are from people who are judging or second-guessing Clinton; none are from people who might be able to provide helpful background or context for the comments that are the subject of the report. It is not a story about Clinton's impact as Secretary of State, but about inside-the-beltway politics and gossip. We have too much of that.

The people interviewed are knowledgeable and articulate, and the interviews are well conducted. The producer makes good use of the video medium to provide text-over data and links to websites with additional information. Excellent use of YouTube for journalistic purposes.

It covers story that has been sensationalized and places that in an historical context; it demonstrates difference between a scientist speaking to a topic on which he/she has done significant research and that same scientist speaking to a topic outside the field of that research and shows that the label "scientist" is not a blanket certification of authority.

Straightforward newspaper-style journalism; all quotes from "official" spokesmen; not much in the way of background; technical detail missing - what kind of missile is being tested (range, payload, special features, etc.); how US knows what it knows about test program. No background from Korea specialists in academia; no interviews with those calling for pre-emptive strike or their supporters.

It is written from a particular perspective, which defenders of the President would label "liberal" or "left wing". But the fact remains that it would not have been written at all, or at least would have had no chance of publication in a respectable journal, if the facts it exposes were false, or if the perspective it adopts were not a credible one and widely shared.