An excellent report of what needs to be done, the pushback and how to overcome it if the country has the will and political leaders are courageous enough to pull it off.

There's not enough information about the study to assess it's validity, nor is there any reporting on what a variety of others think the results mean. It does explain why information alone doesn't change people's minds. I wish it had been deeper into an analysis of why the town hall meetings were such a disaster. The final sentence suggests they wouldn't have had to be.

This is an excellent summary of where the House bill stands at the moment. It's apparent that Stupak won't be content with any compromise. He wants women who get insurance from either public OR private insurers to be unable to get an abortion. That would leave them essentially with self-treatment as their only option for a lawful medical procedure. I hope the other holdouts aren't as rigid.

Yes, this is quality journalism. The writer sticks to the facts and answers the questions that arise from them. My only criticism is of how the data are displayed. Comparing percentages approving the measure to the percentages of those rejecting it is misleading at first glance.

This story has the balance and detail in it that makes it far higher quality journalism than the story by the Wall Street Journal on the same topic about the national estimate of jobs gained/saved. This piece gave a very clear and balanced picture of how difficult it is to measure jobs gained or saved, but how important it is to try.

The story is built on the false premise that precision is possible with the jobs created/saved estimate based on responses from a very large number of individuals. Since it lists only tegregious examples of overcounts, failing to give examples of undercounts, the report doesn't have much credibility. It doesn't acknowledge that, even if it's 20,000 above the actual total, that makes the estimate 97% accurate. The story strikes me as more of a slanted opinion piece than straight reporting.

A good, but superficial, summary of a story that's much ado about very little.

This is an excellent summary of what faces those who are most immediately affected by the cap and trade legislation. It is well-sourced, and while it leans toward the benefits to farming of such legislation over the long term, it readily acknowledges the possible hardships to farmers if the law isn't carefully crafted to help them get through the short term challenges.

This is a good summary of what happened to the planned runoff election, but it is VERY thinly sourced. Phrases like "Most Afghans acknowledge" that Abdullah had little chance of winning and quoting only a 19-year-old student as evidence of that, and "some election officials" said the runoff should be scrapped, with nobody quoted, and "most people" in Afghanistan are relieved the long wait is over, raise questions about this reporter's objectivity.

The missing piece in this story is not enough sourcing to establish whether, in fact, the MoD has had requests for helicopters it's turned down. Without that it's simply a "he said," "he said" story. Thorneloe's leaked memo, although interesting in itself, is just the beginning of the story.

What makes this quality journalism is that the writer's experience with presidential decisionmaking provides valuable insights. Afghanistan is not a repeat of Vietnam, where there was an organized insurgency with a hero, Ho Chi Minh, to spur it on. Afghanistan is a very loosely connected collection of warlords, anarchists and committed terrorists. But Sorensen is right that it is, like Vietnam, an unwinnable war. All we can hope for is preventing terrorists from attacking us or our ... More »

I really like this kind of journalism, although I concede it can be slanted fairly easily. Taking snippets of quotes is fraught with the likelihood of "out-of-context" criticism. But pushing journalists to question an interviewee's facts is admirable.

This is a very basic and clear description of various government health plans, which provides a good thumbnail sketch but also a very superficial look at the programs. Forcing the good, bad and ugly format on the report tends to oversimplify the issues. Important considerations missing from this concise overview are indicators of patient satisfaction and health intervention outcomes--both key ingredients to measure a program's success. And the headline is misleading--I was looking ... More »

This is a chilling account of what the Obama administration is up against in Afghanistan. It's especially credible because of Hoh's impressive military experience and carefully considered reasons for resigning. In crisp senttences, the writer draws together all the salient information about how seriously Hoh's action has been taken by the administration.

This is simply a straight reporting of survey results. It offers no particular analysis, except to conclude that Independents show the greatest move toward conservative principles. It could have been improved had there been some analysis of how the results could have been affected by the greatest economic recession since the depression.

Her story shows that Rhodes is an entertainer, not a journalist. The tipoff begins with her gross generalizations about the "new poll," which she doesn't bother to identify. Glenn Beck often loves to declare he belongs to no political party. So using him as an example of Republican abuses is unfair. And referring to his "baby fat" is simply juvenile snarking.

The basic facts were there, but they're given a leftwing spin.

Beck's rant is so full of distortions it's hard to know where to begin. He begins by using snippets of interviews with uneducated people, all of whom are black, which underlines his thinly disguised racism. He quotes Sam Adams, who's talking about why the country needs to separate itself from being oppressed by another nation, not from its own government, Beck bathes in patriotism, although his version of it is to accuse freely elected leaders of launching an assault on those who ... More »

Definitely NOT quality journalism. Pretending fairness, the writer clearly stacks the deck against the legislation for being bad for the public, bad for the credit card industry, and unnecessary because the problem is solving itself.

There's a breathless, Madison Avenue, tone to the piece, as if Townsend is about to sell you some miraculous product or service. He does make a persuasive case for separating the issues of taking care of your health and taking care of costs that are hidden from you. Too many typos, syntax sloppiness, and huge generalizations to make it quality journalism, but strangely fun to read.

This is definitely NOT quality journalism. It does nothing to elucidate the meaning of the health care system's report, merely referring to quotes in Politico and the NYT to give background information. And quoting Rep. Cooper without any context at all is misleading and raises more questions than answers.

Excellent piece that summarizes precisely where the legislation is and what to expect as it rolls through Congress.

Chait doesn't provide much insight into what's going on, just that Dems are likely to push something through, which is pretty much what we're expecting.

This is an important topic, but the writer doesn't seem to know which direction to take it. He begins with the claim women are overcharged for insurance and ends with the claim that charging them the same as men would still be unfair. Quoting a spokeswoman for a Congressman, rather than the Congressman himself diminishes the credibility of the piece. And citing the results of "a survey last year" without naming it casts a shadow of doubt over its validity. Finally, the writer ... More »

The best part of the story was the lengthy piece on the secretary of defense Bob Gates. It fit the rest of the more off-the-wall stuff preceding it because of Gates' demonstrated creative thinking. Makes me VERY glad he's running the Pentagon these days.

Yes, I believe it is quality journalism, addressing the issue directly with sources, even though they were unnamed.

The story gives an interesting account of agricultural production in small countries, but it doesn't go far enough in analyzing the influence of the global economy on local crop production and the world food crisis. Why will a recovering economy lead to worsening the food shortage crisis? Didn't a booming world economy lead to more production in Banlung?

This is entertaining journalism, but it would have to contain far more solid supporting facts to make it quality journalism. Accusing Colin Powell of being a desk jockey Sec. of State is a stretch if he can't compare his effectiveness with other folks in that position who traveled more. The arguments for and against Hilary are simple rehashes of other reports that have already appeared in mainstream magazines, like the New Yorker and Atlantic. If it weren't so derivative it would be ... More »

This is the best brief analysis I've seen that exposes the fallacy of linking offshore drilling to reduced prices at the pump. My only quibble with it is that the writer seems to have accepted without challenge the claim that more drilling would make us more secure. It's going to take a comprehensive policy that addresses the world energy market to improve national security.