Although Friedman is right about the jobs of the future, he doesn't really make the case that it is "influencing today's job market more than people realize." Yes, manufacturing jobs continue to move overseas and are less labor intensive with developing technology, but there's a lot of work that needs to be done now with infrastructure and alternative energy technology that could put people to work immediately. Urging this year's college graduates to prepare for a a changing job market has little to do with today's unemployment rate.

Klain makes a persuasive case for how Obama can avoid getting caught in the contradictory demand, "Do something big, but don't throw any federal money at it.." Unfortunately, Klain doesn't use hard data, or experts on the economy, to bolster his case. He also doesn't address how the president might be able to pull off job creation by finding ways to partner with industries to focus on specific needs of the country, like building/repairing roads and bridges. While green energy jobs are the jobs of the future, there's still a lot of work to be done with the old technology, which would also appeal to a wider political spectrum. Joe Sixpack's looking for shovel-ready employment right now, rather than retraining to install solar panels.

The headline was provocative enough to make me want to read the article. Unfortunately, it failed to deliver on its promise. He seems to say the US could benefit by emulating China's approach to Pakistan, but he doesn't suggest how that can be done, except by a vague reference to social networking as a possible way to increase trade. He doesn't explain what he means by China wins Pakistan's heart, while we win Pakistan's head. The piece also lacks documentation to back up his claims. The syntax is also pretty rough sledding.

The story is clearly slanted toward the military position, although there's an attempt to keep some balance. Its unsupported assumption is that combat troops will be rapidly withdrawn. It also implies the US will withdraw before completing two more seasons of war. Obama's plan allows full combat forces to be used this summer and next, focusing on fighting terrorism rather than fighting an insurgency.

Brooks' a-pox-on-both-houses approach is fair, but not entirely balanced. My only quibble with his supporting evidence of national decline is his lament about the decline in marriages among the working class. I do believe there was a recent story about declining divorce rates, as well. He doesn't explain why fewer marriages signals national decline. But his protest is generally well-supported, given the rigidity of opinions expressed in the media on both sides of the political spectrum. I think his lean toward Republicans, despite scolding them, is revealed by not acknowledging the flexibility in spending cuts expressed by Democrats in Congress and the guy in the White House, and not linking his own pet projects for investing ... More »

This is a good summary of the Olbermann departure and takes a stab at why. Farhi might have gone further in exploring the Comcast connection, but that would probably wind up being conjecture, since nobody's talking.

The glaring omission of this opinion piece is the writer doesn't say why he thinks knowing a politician's religious beliefs is as important as knowing the candidate's positions on specific issues. The implication here is that voters can rely more on the candidate's religious persuasion than his/her stated beliefs.

This story could have been greatly improved if O'Keefe had dealt with the 800 pound gorilla in the room, placed there by Senator Lugar's caveat. Requiring a "fair debate" would no doubt allow unrelated amendments to be proposed (like banning "amnesty" for illegal immigrants) that could wither Democratic support. Avoiding that issue cause's the story to fall short of good journalism.

This is an excellent, and very thorough explanation of the Rangel case. The only thing it lacks is calling into question the long-serving representative's claimed lack of knowledge of his legal options well before he had to appear before the panel for his trial. To claim he's being denied his legal rights is a stretch too far, and his reference to his distinguished career to qualify him for an exception is embarrassingly self-pitying. Better journalism would have shed light on these issues.

This is an excellent analysis of what's to become of the Supreme Court's decision to allow phony organizations to hide big campaign donors. The Democrats will, no doubt, become as adept at corrupting elections as the Republicans have already been. Voters are the losers, unless journalists like Shapiro are able to break through to the public with this message and force Congress to take action to prevent the wholesale selling of elections to the highest bidder.

The story doesn't measure up to its headline. It promises to show how trade has declined since SB1070, yet provides nothing but anecdotal evidence. The rest of the article is primarily a rehash of already-reported facts about the politics involved and the absence of evidence that the law has increased public safety. Since a lot of folks don't realize Arizona's crime problem, like that of other urban areas throughout the country has declined, it's good for journalists to continue to report that. A much more interesting angle for this story would be an analysis of whether the recession has been the primary cause of the decline in trade--and use reliable statistics to back that up.

This is an excellent piece that shows how reality gets twisted by politics. The only thing missing, I believe, is any reference to the power of the media to shape public opinion. FOX News has enormous influence and has made no secret of its support for Republicans. The mainstream media, while aiming to be neutral, tend to dwell on whatever narrative is selling at the moment. And unemployment and doom and gloom have been the big sellers over the past year.

Nope, not good journalism. Conclusions and generalizations by the writer substitute for actual quotes from the candidates. The tenthers simply want states to take responsibility for what the feds are doing now. That, in itself, is cause for making a case against them, but to claim the entire social safety net would collapse in one fell swoop is oversimplifying to the point of diminishing the writer's credibility. Articles like this one hurt, rather than help progressive arguments to preserve these programs.

It's OK journalism, but it lacks authoritative sourcing to make it good journalism. And there is a kind of internal contradiction in his argument. Moore claims corporations hate competition, but illustrates how effectively they battle it out with their competitors. It's not that they hate competition. They love to compete, so long as they're winning. They hate losing, which makes losers of the customers they're supposed to be serving. The gratuitous shout out to Sarah Palin trivializes his argument, and blaming Blue Cross for the country's low life expectancy is what it is, a glittering generality that sounds good to true believers.

This is an example of the worst in what some claim to pass as journalism. Brietbart simply makes cryptic jabs from the sidelines while quoting others, without identifying who said them or in what context the remarks were made. He cites examples of what he considers to be equally offensive speech without explaining how he thinks they're similar and show liberal hypocrisy. This is an extremely important issue, but Breitbart adds more heat than light to it.

This is passable journalism only in the way it reported basic facts, the who, what, why, where and how of it. Rather than stringing together a collection of quotes, the story would have been better had Guevara revealed which statements Bush made that caused the two standing ovations. Also, every quote was a cliche. Certainly there must have been something in the speech that spoke to difficult decisions and how he made them. Journalists have a duty to go beyond the words alone to help readers gain a deeper understanding of what speechmakers say and what they choose not to talk about. Those kinds of choices make the difference between ok journalism and good journalism.

No, this is not very good journalism. Goldberg concedes all presidents must have large egos, but he implies that Obama just isn't skillful enough to hide his. So, what does that tell us about his presidential effectiveness? Not much, except that those who envy him can point to his ego as a shortcoming. Bush had his swagger, which he called just the way Texans walk, and, of course, his famous "bring it on" challenge to terrorists. Opinion pieces like these don't shed light on anything but personality debates. And to quote an outgoing staff member who has a high regard for his boss as proof that Obama has an outsized ego is quite a stretch.

Yes, this is good journalism. The writer systematically lays out the facts and compares Whitman's actions with her words. The piece does not shed additional light on the subject of the nation's hypocrisy when it comes to undocumented immigrants, but it does hold a candidate for office accountable for her claims.

This was a disappointing article, given the reputation of the New York Times for more in-depth reporting. Its biggest flaw is raising the issue of how government and private sectors could work together the way other countries do, but failing to provide anything more specific as to how that might be done, other than a vague reference to protectionism.

This should be required reading of anyone with any interest in the issue of Muslims building a community center near the site of the 9'11 attacks. Rauf systematically removes each argument for stopping the project. It isn't a tribute to those who perverted Islam to attack America. It isn't an exclusive club. Its funding will be fully transparent. The neighborhood supports it. It will contain a memorial to 9/11 victims. He explains how the religious underpinnings of these three major religions are linked. As one pundit put it, this whole controversy will disappear on November 3. It's a phony issue created by politicians who espouse the use of fear in election campaigns. The beauty of Rauf's opinion piece is that he exposes ... More »

This should be required viewing for all budding journalists. Stewart gets to the heart of the hypocrisy in the debate about the mosque through humor. The point he makes, though, is deadly serious. Too many journalists, in an effort to be fair to all sides, don't expose the dangerous fallacies embedded in arguments made by wackos.

The gaping hole in this opinion piece is the absence of the specific complaint being made by critics of the Vatican. Without citing it, Addison leaves the reader to conclude he has merely created a straw man to bash. Not an example of good journalism.

This is excellent journalism. It exposes the fallacies and political pandering surrounding the illegal immigration debate by citing statistics rather than opinions.

Although the topic is timely and important, the writer is so caught up in his own political biases, resorting to unexamined catch phrases and generalizations, that he sheds more heat than light on the subject. There's a contradiction in his position that test scores shouldn't be used to measure a school's success. He uses them to make the point that charter schools are doing no better than traditional schools. He avoids any suggestions about how to measure student learning, except through subjective assessment by teachers. He seems to be saying that schools will be improved only through adopting his version of critical pedagogy and increasing the funding of schools and the salaries of teachers. He scoffs at the role of schools ... More »

Comparing the two countries is interesting and informative, but not addressing the fact that Canada's economy is so closely linked with the U.S. economy and exploring how that country benefits from that makes the article fall short of quality journalism. The immigration issue is not comparable at all.

Nothing very new in this article, and it's unfortunate that only general references to researcher findings are included. Most examples given are of the unsupported biases of the political right, which makes the article unbalanced in its assertions. It's also disappointing that the writer offered no solutions--only a flippant remark about the impossibility of reigning in glib politicos. Keohane might have pointed out that responsible broadcast journalists should do fact checks on those they interview, and report them later, rather than simply allow "he said, she said" reports to go unchallenged. That's what good journalism is supposed to do, isn't it?

This is an excellent overview of what's actually happening with the unemployed. The writer does not dispute that some individuals may be taking advantage of the system, but denying benefits to the hundreds of thousands of those looking for any kind of work is revealed as bad policy. Unemployed people don't pay taxes--slowing the recovery. The article could have been improved by adding sources from economists like the Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman.

This is a good overview of who the tea partiers are, but it hardly scratches the surface of the conventional wisdom. It could have been improved with more in-depth exploration of the validity of the views expressed by its leaders.

This is a good overview of the opinions of those to the left of center about the G20 summit. Especially interesting was the description of how the group was formed by two powerful men.

When a Nobel Prize winner in economics speaks, we need to listen. In this provocative peace, Krugman relies entirely on his own Keynesian economic theory, but he does make a compelling argument that without urgent government action, there's little reason for faith in a recovery led by a private sector left to its own devices.

Not much here that adds to an understanding about what's happening in the gulf. While what Hayward and Obama do in their spare time is no doubt of interest to those suffering from the spill, there's no suggestion it hinders the capture of the spewing oil. It's not exactly yellow journalism, but it's headed in that direction.

The report doesn't shed much light on what happened, it merely raises several possibilities. More in depth reporting would have improved its journalistic quality. An old-school reporter might have sought out Greene voters to solicit their opinions

This is most definitely not quality journalism. It's simply a rehash of the justifications free-market true believers use whenever the private sector really screws up and government fails to see it coming.

This is an excellent explanation of why so many are unemployed for so long. It would have been improved had the writer contrasted the long-term unemployed with those who managed to get re-hired more quickly. That would have gone further to serve the interests of the reader.

This is an excellent brief summary of the meaning of the recent jobs report, informative and unbiased, with a nudge toward what it means to our future economy.

This is quality journalism as an opinion piece. The writer expresses clearly the Turkish view of the incident and puts it into historical context with Turkey's relationship with Israel. It's a very persuasive argument for the world to do a credible investigation of what happened.

This is mediocre journalism. The issue is extremely important and relevant, but it simply reports that which has been reported elsewhere. The writer needed to consult with scientists by name to investigate the plumes, not "scientists" say. As for the sick workers, checking with doctors would have been a good idea, rather than simply reporting the difference of opinion over what caused the workers to get sick.

This is an excellent analysis of the fallout for both sides resulting from the flotilla attack. Friedman's comparison of the tactics used by Palestinians to the tactics used earlier by Zionists against the British is spot-on. The nub of the matter is contained in the quote, " The Israelis will argue that this is all unfair, as they were provoked. Like the British, they seem to think that the issue is whose logic is correct. But the issue actually is, whose logic will be heard?"

Yes, this is quality journalism. It uses sources from both sides of the dispute, international law experts and their own reporter to report the facts. It also shines a light on the need for more analysis by international bodies to uncover whether there is any basis for the Israel claim that the flotilla posed a threat to Israel or was, as it claimed, on a solely humanitarian mission.

NO, this is not quality journalism. It's journalism at its worst, with errors of fact combined with fact-free assertions. The commission is bipartisan and holds publicly announced and video-streamed meetings. I just watched their most recent one. The committee will not surpass the congress's usual law-making procedures. The quotes taken out of context of Alan Simpson's CNBC interview are misleading. The committee has a very difficult task and will be criticized by all sides, since its report will need to advise the president of compromises that will need to be made to save social security for future generations. This writer is proving his point.