This is quality journalism for those who enjoy reading about the uninteresting things that Obama has done thus far in his presidential term. It isn't trash in that it is relevant and factual and offers insight into the legitimate things Obama has done.

this article essentially quotes Obama throughout without offering much perspective or story from the writer. The article has a little backround but basically just sums up what Obama said in his speech.

This is quality journalism in the sense that it gives readers a compilation of resources regarding Obama's 100 days without really editorializing the story. However, this does not exempt the writers from bias. The trick is to be careful when reading the historians remarks, they could be hinting at the same thing.

Indeed. This article demonstrates praise and criticism, simultaneously. While applauding Obama for his proactivity over the first 100 days, the writer remains skeptical of the effectiveness of Obama's actions with a "Only time will tell" mentality.

This is not quality journalism because it lacks any objectivity towards Obama's first 100 days in office. Granted, the journalist who wrote this obviously has his/her own opinion on Obama as a president, but being critical of political figures is a journalistic trend worth having. Compared to articles of a more objective nature, this one holds less weight.

This article is quality journalism interwoven with trivial information. Fortunately, or unfortunately, many readers find this information of some significance or journalists would not include much of it. This article includes important information on the proactivity of Barack Obama's presidency.