This piece does the kind of analysis that the late I F Stone would approve of: looking at documents, paying attention to words, checking other sources, and comparing earlier to current statements. Porter proves again why he is one of the better critical journalists around, not transcribing or following the latest governmental press release or cultural shrieks.

Facts, fact checks, interviews, double checks. Gareth Porter is a very professional journalist. He lets the facts speak for themselves and therefore does a good job of raising questions about the IAEA's credibility since the departure of El Baradei and the supervision of his successor.

For one thing, Ritter was the first in a mainstream outlet to point out that Iran reported the program four days before President Obama "revealed" the story. Ritter has the expertise and the historical continuity in his head to provide credibility a great deal of what he says. Further, he is hardly a fan of Iran, and makes that clear throughout.

Obviously based on transcripts and/or attendance at the hearings, the reporter has paid attention to the facts of the case and has done homework about the precedents. This is also a good job of reporting in showing the implied conflict between the more conservative members of the court and the Obama administration. This is obviously a progressive/liberal viewpoint presented here, because it states that the precedents are "in jeopardy" (whereas a proponent of the appellant's point of view would not see jeopardy but opportunity). Nonetheless the POV is transparent and upfront but does not distort the facts being reported.

No obfuscation. Clear language, lays out the pitfalls as well as the good points.

Jamail has credibility because he is not afraid to put himself in danger. He has been reporting on the effects of the payments to the Awakening Councils since the "Surge" began to be praised by embeds and politicians, and thus has been presenting the underside of the "assumed success" consistently. If violence does break out in Iraq to spoil the 18 month incomplete withdrawal promised by the President, this will be a key piece of the puzzle in the analysis.

Essentially this is a notice of Blankfein's speech by a business journalist insider who is so mildly critical that it's value is undercut by its adoption of a reasonable tone. No mention is made of Blankfein's role as an insider on the Treasury/Goldman Sachs back room dealing. Ending with a suggestion to decrease the political influence peddling of Wall Street is easy enough to suggest when some real criticism of what is diningenuous speech at best is sorely needed. This is patsy journalism.

The writer has a background from within the subject area and is aware of the exceptions--very few it should be said--to the general rule of his thesis, but on the whole backs up his ideas with telling examples and personal anecdote for a damning look at the demise of journalism in one of its most important areas: financial affairs.

An excellent and strong opinion piece based on close analysis of the Obama speech on the Iraq War.

It presents evidence not normally seen in the mainstream media outlets, mainly because of media censorship and limitations on any information critical of Israel, even though the information is readily available in Israel itself.

This piece rates high, for drama, for detail, for a sense of witness in its pure narration, with the best stories that come out of wartime journalism. Even the testimonial, which some may see as "partial to the Palestinians" gives witness to a continuation of dedication in the face of this terrible onslaught of high technology and relentlessness.

Information about face to face interviews with Hamas leaders is always of value since we see very little of it. Further, information about the Shiia versus Sunni elements of these anti-Israel movements is always valuable.

For a piece of reportage it is remarkably one sides, with the only "neutral" voice that from a partisan Center for Strategic and International Studies. That no one from the Indian opposition was interviewed is highly suspicious that this is part of the media blitz. Unfortunately, appearing in the Herald Tribune brings it more weight than it should have.

It's a good opinion piece though partisans of the Bush camp will find it slanted, though the real target is the US mainstream media, and in that sense, the Bush "legacy Campaign" is really the context for the criticism not only of Bush but of the general subservience and highly uncritical handling of the Bush presidency by the mainstream media.

An interesting but somewhat meandering and cryptic piece. It provides, ultimately, some good caution for ordinary Americans, but the caution is so attenuated by the writer's combination of wordiness and shifts in tone that the message is weakened.

This is an attempt at a positive look at the Bush administration, but the irony is in the comparisons. Comparing Bush to Millard Fillmore or James Buchanan and saying they would have done worse than Bush is damning with faint praise, though the opinion writer seems to be unaware of the comparison. The writer's major defense of Bush, that his (positive) legacy would have been assured had he "registered victory" in the war on terror, or "had the economic collapse been averted, or had "winning the peace" in Iraq and Afghanistan been "quick and easy" is hardly convincing, and does nothing but point out the failure of Bush with unconscious irony. Perhaps the worst defense is that Bush had an ability to "remain presidential" ... More »

It reports the facts of the Presidential project nicely and for outside perspective it takes a very well respected academic, Dallek, who creates a context that shows the unusual truth of this campaign.

Very factual, researched to lay the biographical facts out for these team members. However, since this is an article dealing only with SELECTED team members, one wishes for all the members to be listed and for clear definition of the overlaps to be made.

Normal in journalism these days is reliance on anonymous sources. However, by showing disagreement between the two, the writer clearly indicates verification rather than only one source. He contacted a State Department official to check the content. A denial to comment tells much. In this sense, we are given a good topic to keep on the radar screen of corruption in Iraq. The writer also contacts the company under scrutiny for response and provides good back story for how the investigation came about.

Speculation from a political blog is not reporting. This writer appears to be letting himself be used as a trial balloon. How about doing some grilling of these anonymous transition adviser "officials"?

The article provides history as a check against the current optimistic floundering about and egotistical investments of the world leaders. It provides good references to explain the current financial dilemma, and provides a good thumbnail history of the Basel (1 & 2) agreements, and their biggest weakness: their reliance on rating agencies and the flawed assumptions built into the computer models of risk that are used by all banks.

This compiles some well chosen voices from the Middle East who do not represent the normal pro-Israel or pro-Zionist stance. These viewpoints are essential for understanding the normally under reported views on conflict in the Middle East. Readers on both left and right need to take these views into consideration.

It's quality opinion, not necessarily quality journalism. It gives good insight into what conservative strategy will be in the coming months.

It doesn't purport to be.

This is ood straight reporting and an interesting story about an important topic.

Good opinion journalism. Stated fairly by the Russian in an attempt to present the Russian point of view. What saves it from partisanship and points to Gorbachev as an elderstatesman is his implicit and explicit insistence on negotiation, understanding of the other side, and written agreements intended to AVOID violence. Those of us who are bound in our Western bubble might use this to pay attention to the more rational voices emanating from Russia.

The problem is that the reporters NEVER deal with the questions of who actually started the conflict. Most sources have indicated that Georgia itself started the hostilities against South Ossetia that prompted the Russians to carry out their military action. The lack of attention to this basic question, there fore, calls into question the objectivity of the WSJ--which is usually more thorough in its reporting--and therefore suggests a Western/American bias to the otherwise thorough piece with plenty of background.

Superb writing, as usual from Robert Fisk, who understands that writing like this must be filled with powerful details. This is reporting on research, and a fine essay, emphasizing the Medieval history to very firmly and justly make its point that the madmen from back then have now been reincarnated. Unfortunately, like fine irony, the intelligent ones, like Mukasy, will refrain from listening to their conscience and acting, and the madmen, like Cheney, could not give one penny for the critique.

It's good to see a story which presents a large selection of excerpts from the Union of Concerned Scientists versus the NRC and the manufacturers. At the very least an intelligent reader understands that he should do some more research and reading on the subject. Unfortunately, what is left out is the big picture of 1) whether the enormous time line to get these plants online (and the historically notorious cost overruns) will actually result in an effective impact on the need for cleaner energy; 2) The matter of subsidies, without which the manufacturers would not be able to even think of building the plans; and finally, 3) the Achilles heel of the industry: that no real solution to the problem of nuclear waste has been found ... More »