Like so much political discourse these days, this piece uses one piece of unexamined narrative to produce another, and so on. As Kurt Vonnegut once remarked, if things were different, other things would be different, too. This piece begins with the COW that HCR reform is overwhelmingly unpopular with the public and is being passed despite their wishes. That assertion has been well litigated elsewhere and found to be less than convincing. It is much more salient as a journalist to challenge the conventional wisdom and ask what price the right pays if it continues to debate an issue when the public is ready to move on? That would have been a good Sunday think piece.

This is the sort of in-depth reporting American public education needs. Green addresses the 500-lb gorilla sitting at the front of the room: Quality of teaching is related to the quality of people drawn to the profession.

Guns and butter are not conflicting uses of a nation's treasury and human capital, and no adminsitration should consider domestic initiatives and military adventurism as trade-offs. It is upon this novel predicate that Mr. Ajami launches an erudite assault on Obama foreign policy. The assault is otherwise without citation, example or foundation. We know Mr. Ajami to be correct because of recent example. George W. Bush, Mr. Ajami's lauded demolisher of Iraqi tyranny (as though that were necessary or desirable) achieved just this sort legerdemain by financing his war at the neighborhood, Chinese-run, loan company. Thus, he passed its cost onto progeny while obscuring it from the voting-age middle class. The absence of any Bush ... More »

There are numerous gaping holes iin the GOP line of attack, and the reporting leaves much of it unexamined. Not until the final graph and only indirectly in a quote is the most salient issue raised: The attacker was cleared by foreign security, not American. This article leaves unanswered the most important question in this whole issue: What, exactly, could the United States have done to have thwarted this attack. Was there a direct action that could have been taken? This piece focuses more on the partisanship, and offers none of the context by which this could be assessed.

It often seems like Ben Smith is grinding axes, but this piece indicates he is capable of real journalism: Doing solid research, presenting it fairly, and stand out of the way. Though the piece is choppy and cries for a good editor adept at transitions, it would be acceptable work coming from a journalism major near graduation.

The entire premise proceeds from Mr. Hitchens' medical assessment of two women done via photographs taken at a distance compared to: Nothing. He chooses to argue with two other writers by setting them up as straw dogs; yet, even against an opponent made of straw, he proffers not arguments, but insults. Calling someone who does not have the right of reply "boot lick" or "inexpert bore." Is not polemics: It is playground bullying.

This is a broad, complex story and The Post apparently made every effort to get both sides at every critical juncture. It takes journalistic skill and personal courage to work around a deliberately obdurate bureaucracy.

This meta view of contemporary American politics appears to be predominantly objective and in generally acceptable context. It offers original analysis and does not present any overt bias. It is top-drawer journalism.

This appears to be better sourced and more tightly edited than the typical Rueters piece

While Moore has some interesting insight, this piece lacks foundation and independent reporting. If there are rumors, what are they, how credible are they, how are they affected by her resignation. If those questions cannot be answered and confirmed, leave the rumor-mongering to the pros on Twitter.

It's a straight news report of an important event. There is no attempt at balance, i.e., solicitation of reaction from opponents; but that will come in due time. It is not essential to coverage of a breaking event

For an opinion piece, it is fair in the way it depicts both sides of the issue. It is insightful and contextual in its analysis, though the short course in marginal utility is a bit difficult to follow.

Fairly reported. Written with the Time's customary insistence on broad "cosmic" overview, which may or may not be fully supported further down in the copy.

The piece lacks balance and historical context. What, precisely, would the writer have the United States do? And how, precisely, would a precipitous move by the United States affect oil prices, and what affect would that have global economic recovery? What is going on in Iran today is internal and, as the president appeared to understand, is at the beginning of a process. Intervention by outside forces would immediately terminate that process. Enough of the Cowboy diplomacy, please!

The reporting is factual, objective, in-depth and in context. Important background and historical information is adroitly weaved into the narrative. The headline and lede are mildly misleading. The story is more about a water shortage than snakes.

Long duree. The writer articulates a useful context born of an in-depth comprehension of the social structures at play. This is so much more than the thin veneer that characterizes much of contemporary reportage.

The "reporting" begins with a series of unsubstantiated assertions. When did sourcing cease to be a journalistic requisite? Further down, the reporting becomes more factual. It's as if the reporters wrote one story and the higher-ups put their version on top of it.

The reporting is factual. Written for a broad audience, the story is not able to go into as great depth as it would if it focused on only one corporation.