The only source in this story is a councilman whose ties to Mfume are not clear, and the crux of the story is based on hearsay. I would like to see documentation of an effort to reach Mfume, even if he never returned calls. There are also several references to rumors, fame, and widely accepted thought that I question and that are not substantial enough for my liking.

I feel like in a few places, the author slipped some of his opinions in. He also only had one source whose information is based off of hearsay. The author had no confirmation or quotes from Mfume or his representatives. This story is solely about a rumor that may or may not be put to rest by another rumor.

The story is in itself a rumor - as the only source is a Councilman D'Adamo. This history of Mfume's campaign career is interesting, but without his own confirmation of the story, it is just hearsay.

This story seems like a bit of hearsay. They have some good sources but I would have liked to see more facts.

It doesn't have anything that people need to know. It's basically digging up dirt on the other people running for mayor and making everyone except the person they support look bad. There's just not a lot of useful information in here and it's not something that is terribly important to the public to know about

Bias, rumors, and one Councilman's opinion does not equal good sourcing. No direct Mfume quotes or sourcing makes this a weak story.

I didn't think this was good journalism because, as stated by many before me, it's hearsay. The topic would be interesting there was actually a story. The only quote was from Councilman Nicholas C. D'Adamo and that didn't present anything we didn't know.

The author failed to include vital information about why Kweisi Mfume decided not to run for mayor. Also, I would like to know if Mfume ever wanted to run for mayor in the first place.

I strongly do not believe that this is good journalism. The story was suppose to focus on Mfume choosing not to run, however, allegations of him womanizing, in my opinion was completely irrelevant. Also the writer's choice of words are one that I do not agree with. When Mfume said he will not run the writer states, "...thereby narrowing the mayoral field of hopefuls to former Planning Department chief Otis Rolley, City Councilman Carl Stokes (D-12th), ex-Councilman Jody Landers, and perennial candidate Clerk of the Circuit Court Frank M. Conaway". This wording in my opinion states that Mfume was not considered a "hopeful" one. I may be taking the sentence too far into context, however, thats what writers need to look for, they ... More »

I found this article to be slightly confusing. After reading it I do not get a sense of who Mfume is and why he is not running for mayor. There were only two quotes, and they do not validate the rest of the article efficiently. Also, I do not think this is good journalism because it does not go very far in depth about Mfune and the allegations he faced, which are most likely the reason why he has decided not to run for mayor. Overall this article is not very helpful to my understanding of this man.

The organization of this article perplexes me. It jumps all over the place from a jumbled lead to the mini paragraph within a paragraph about Shelia Dixon. Then it gives one vague quote that doesn't add much to the gist of the story and some paragraphs painting a picture of Mfume in a bad light. The article brought up all the negatives about Mfume before highlighting the good aspects, leaving the reader with a derogatory feeling about the ex-candidate. Some quotes about why he is not running as well would have bolstered the weak, Wikipediaesc information in the article and added a little extra depth. Although really, how deep can you get on an article based on a foundation of hearsay?

I think if this story included more sources it could be improved. Some of the wording is very biased which caused a problem for me.

This story isn't based on anything Mfume actually stated publicly. It's hard to "put the rumor to rest" when the closure we are supposedly getting is in itself a rumor.

The article starts off emitting opinions when the reporter says, "per se." The writer may be attempting to allude to the rumor but instead seems to be putting down Mfume. The second paragraph of the article does not connect well to the lead. It includes irrelevent information about Mayor Sheila Dixon and then attempts to relate it back to Mfume at the end, inefectively. This paragraph also includes way too much information. The writer includes very few quotes, and some of those quotes are not even complete. For example, the writer quotes, "not going to happen." This is not a full quote. Also, the reporter shows no initiative because he/she recieved this and all other quotes from another publication, Investigative Voice. The ... More »

Why wasn't Mfume available for comment? There is nothing about him not returning phone calls or e-mails, nor declining comment on the topic. What does this mean for the upcoming election? Who is "bent on denying Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake an elective term of office?" Why?

This article did not represent good journalism in any way. The information included in the article was not factual considering that it did not verify or make the reader actually believe that "the rumor can now be put to rest." There was only one source included in the entire article, and the source was not even Mfume himself; yet it was a councilman named D'adamo. Not only was this article poorly souced and lacked plenty of information and factuality, but it was not a well written article. The article was difficult to read because I found it very confusing. I should not be left asking any questions at the end of a read, and with this, I was questioning a lot.

This story is somewhat speculative. Unless Mfume or his spokesperson had officially announced that he had decided not to run, making this claim was too risky. I would have wanted to hear it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. The short bio as an ending also seemed a little irrelevant. Why spend an additional four grafs detailing someone's history if you're ruling them out as a candidate? Forman probably should have waited it out.

This story kind of confused me. It seemed to jump around and the fact that it didnt include any real credible or balanced sources made it even harder to follow. I would have liked to see Mfume comment on the subject.

The sources do not seem reliable and the story does not seem to contain substantial facts or evidence to back up the claims it is making.

I only see one source quoted. Where is Mfume's commentary? This article seems to be a list of the way Mfume has a record of losing positions/elections more so than how his "opting out" affects Baltimore and its voters. His decision to not run for mayor is of interest to Baltimore, but why and what not?

Forman does an adequate job of giving the readers important background information on the subject of the piece, Kweisi Mfume. Information on both his career and personal life are given. The writer, however, loses his objectivity when he describes Baltimore's ex-mayor Sheila Dixon's resignation as a "disgrace."

This article was written based on hearsay and not fact reported from the person who the story is about.

This would be good journalism if there was some kind of direct quote from Kweisi Mfume instead of a someone giving a "what he said quote".He still has not directly confirmed anything. Its more fair letting the subject have a say in what you are writing about.

The problem with this article is that it's based off a rumor. If the author had backed up this rumor with credible sources, then that would be one thing. But this article only has one source, a Councilman who's ties to Mfume are unclear. Additionally, the lead is misleading. The title of the article claims that he Mfume will not be running for mayor. However, the lead says that Mfume is "emerging again this year as the city's most famous perennial rumored candidate." Overall, I believe that will a few more credible sources with ties to Mfume would make this article much better journalism.

While this article has stated that by reading it, "the rumors can now be put to rest", I disagree. With not direct quotes, especially from the most reliable source this article could have quoted, Mfume himself, it leaves the reader skeptical. By providing a quote from Mfume, it would have given the article more credability and provide the readers with an explanation as to why he allegedly will not be running. While the writer seemingly attempts to provide the readers with explanations hinting to why he did not run, such as his prior allegations, that is not sufficient enough. All in all, this article is mediocre and seemingly not credible.

I don't think this is good journalism. It seems to be full of opinion and hardly any facts. It is extremely unfair. It only has one source which didn't add anything to the story. Therefore, the reporter doesn't back up their story or information. It is poorly written and lacks depth. Therefore, the reporter doesn't really earn credibility as a journalist.

The story only has one source, Councilman Nicholas C. D’Adamo Jr. A story like this doesn't necessarily need more than one source--it is just an announcement that Kweisi Mfume is not running in the mayoral race--but having more than one source would create a more legitimate story. Other than this, I found the story to be concise, with substantial career background information on Mfume.

This is a story about Kweisi Mfume, but he's not personally involved in the story. There is no interview with him present. This story is based off of someone else talking about rumors involving him.

This article does not show great initiative. The author sources one person and the quote was not at all meaningful. It does not seem like the author put much effort into getting the facts straight before writing this article. Most of the article was just background information. I do not find this to be good journalism at all.

This is not an example of the strongest piece of journalism because it's not even really newsworthy. The whole point of the article is who isn't running for the campaign where as a strong article could have been to cover who is running for the campaign and mention that he is not despite rumors.

I feel that this article took no initiative to reach out to Mr. Mfume. To be honest I really don't know if he is running or not because I feel the quote is not accurate. I would've liked more information on the race instead of biased background information.

It has quotes from reliable sources to confirm that Kweisi Mfume is not going to be a candidate for Baltimore mayor. It gave a brief summary of past issues with the office of the mayor and a brief history of Mfume.

The only source isn't even a direct quote. I do not trust this source and wouldn't recommend it.

I think the lead is misleading. It sounds as though the city is losing a promising candidate for mayor but then describes Mfume's flaws and failures. The piece is poorly sourced and it appears the author didn't do any real investigating.

This story felt very wordy and confusing to me. I don't know anything about this subject, so maybe that's why the information felt difficult to read, but it is the reporter's job to make it easy for anyone to understand. Rating this story on cleanliness, I say that it needs much improvement. As for factual information, it appears to be true, but then again there are no comments from Mfume himself, so how can we know? I'm unsure about trusting this story.

The story could have used a few more sources, or someone closer to Mfume to verify that he was in fact not running for office, It relied on the word of Councilman D'Adamo, who may not have been the best source of information.

Some additional sources on this story would definitely have made it seem more credible, like a quote from Mfume himself. Also, I think more background context would be useful for readers who have no prior knowledge about him or the speculations concerning his potential mayoral candidacy.

It's a simple write up, but it gets the point across. It is well-written.

This story is factual and provides a lot of background on the rumored candidate. But, I didn't understand the big picture, what was the point of this story? What does it have to do with the Baltimore area and people?

This story did not use investigative reporting and could have tried to speak more people and provide more detail. The back-story is basically left out and the article skims the surface of the issue.

I felt like this was pretty mediocre journalism. The article was only fairly informative in that it got its main point across, which was Mfume wasn't going to be running for the mayoral position nor was he worthy of the position. I also felt like this journalist was forcing his personal opinions of Mfume (particularly his scandalous past) on the audience.

This article is very factual and well-written. This is a good and bad thing. I was not able to follow some parts of what I was reading,however, it is a very relevant and current topic to discuss. I do believe that more people should have been cited. Without Mfumes own quotes, this article cannot be verified. I have never heard of this article before so I do not know if I should trust the publication or not. Based on the well-written aspect of the article, I would.

I think this story seemed very biased. The wording the journalist used put opinion into the story. I think the same topic could have been executed in a more professional way.

From the start of the article I feel it is too wordy and fancy. It isn't written in traditional news style format. It also has very biased words in the article such as "resigned in disgrace". It gives a lot of information about Mfume, but there is limited sourcing. I'd also like to know exactly why he isn't running, not just that he definitely opted out.

Not very good journalism- there was a lot of jumping around which made the article very unclear, there was losts of irrelevant detail that added clutter to the story without adding meaning, the wording was over all confusing.

This article is not well sourced at all. The only source used is a councilman. Also, I do not think story is very in depth either. I think there could have been more important information that would be more useful and aimed to the public. I also do not think this article is particularly well written and to me seems a little scattered.

I thought that this was decent. It didn't really give the whole picture but it's definitely relevant and well-sourced. I don't know if I would recommend it because I don't really trust/know the publication well and it didn't really go too far in depth. I think I could go somewhere else and find a much better article about it.

I don't think this is good journalism because the reporter based the fact that Mfume won't run for Mayor based on another source who heard it from Mfume. I can't trust that this person is being truthful or maybe even messed up his own facts. The reporter should have at least interviewed another source close to Mfume to back up his findings and really should have tried to contact Mfume directly. The reporter does give some background knowledge about Mfume which helps give the reader context.

This is not very good journalism by the author because he/she has to go more into detail over the whole race for mayor. Also the story was not very newsworthy because it didn't show that much novelty and was not much of a human interest. It's not something a reader will want to stop what they are doing and read this article

This is good journalism because it is very relevant today as the elections for Baltimore mayor are coming up. However, it would have been better sourced if the journalist were to actually get word from Mfume himself on why exactly he does not plan on running for mayor. However, D'Adamo is still a significant political source and trustworthy. If one was to write a more enterprising story though, words from Mfume would have been more appropriate.

This story did a good job presenting some interesting facts, but ultimately left the story emotionless and rather boring to read. Along with this, I found myself questioning the relevance and the credability of some of the journalistic work and interviews that took place in the article.

I don't think that this is good journalism. I did not follow this story well and felt that it was slightly all over the place. I understand that it is important relevant because it is local news and affects Maryland residents. Otherwise I thought it was poorly written and not an easy read.

This article was not very interesting. There was lack of organization which made it hard to read. I did not believe that “the rumor could be put to rest.” There was also a lack of sources. The one and only source I found was from Mfume himself. I felt this article was poorly written and I would not recommend it.

It is an interesting story if you are into politics, but it does not go to much in depth of why Mfume will not be running as Mayor.

I didn't think this article was as sourced or as factual as it should have been. It is not one of the best articles I have read on this site.

My biggest issue with the story is how poorly is written. I read it once, then had to read it again to get a full understanding of the big picture. But if this story was written well, it shouldn't have taken me more than simply reading the lead to understand what this story was really about. I also find the mention of "allegations of womanizing" to be somewhat unprofessional, since allegations are just about the farthest you can get from concrete fact. It casts a negative light that isn't related to the main topic of the story in the first place. The story is also far too biographical. I understand providing necessary background, but I found the majority of it to be somewhat padding and not necessary to the main idea.

I think this story was good journalism. It was very short and to-the-point which is good for those who don't have time to read a lengthy article. It is very relevant considering the election for mayor is coming up shortly. I think the source was credible, but I think an official statement from Mfume would be more important for people to read about.

This isn't good journalism as it provides very few sources, relies on second hand info and is simply a resume/timeline of Mfume's career; nothing much in the way of detail about him running.

The story seems a little biased in which the author makes claims about Mfume without providing enough factual evidence. It also did not keep my full attention.

This article did not explain his reasoning for not running or what impacted his decision which could have made the article a lot more interesting.

This article is good journalism. I didn't have much trouble reading it or following along. I did, however, have some trouble towards the middle of the story after the writer says "D'Adamo recounted." The writer uses a comma at the end of the quote and continues to talk about what was said in the quote. The way this was written confused me a little bit. I have no big problems with this article other than the relevancy. No offense, but I could go through life not knowing that Mfume decided not to run for mayor of Baltimore. From what I read, he doesn't seem like a good candidate anyway. But I digress. Good article, keep it up.

The writer uses a lot of credible sources to support the article. There is a clear outline of the Mfume's political background emphasizing why it was thought that he might run for mayor this spring. By describing all of his achievements and imvolvment in the community the writer introduces why Mfume is an important individual. The writer is also neutral, providing the reason Mfume had left his job at NAACP.

The sources were correct. It was short and to the point. It just stated that he would not be running. It's good journalism because it's relevant to us because it is about local news.

This is good journalism because it is very informative of a current political event. It is very factual and gets to the point. I wish it had more context and caught my interest more.

This article is not very good journalism. It is not in-depth at all and does not have much supporting information. There are not many expert quotes. I would not recommend this article if you are interested in this topic.

informative for those who did not know who is/was planning to run for mayor. This is a very important local issue.

I did not understand this story very well.

I didn't find this to be very good journalism. The article wasn't well sourced since there was only one source from Councilman Nicholas C. D’Adamo Jr. I thought the author should have went more into detail about why Kweisi Mfume is not going to be running in the mayoral race instead of discussing other ideas that don't seem to relate to the topic presented in the title and don't really do much to enrich the article. I noticed the second quote by Councilman Nicholas C. D’Adamo Jr. didn't have a closing quotation mark and this should have been caught if the article was well proofread.

The story could have been written in a more enterprising and engaging way. The lead seemed to begin with a clause and the sentences were long and confusing. If there was more than one source used then the article would seem more credible. Some cliches were also used and should have been avoided.

This seems rather unreliable and that it's going on rumors. More sources would have been better.

I am disappointed in Kweisi Mfume's lack of morals and disregard as a public official. I found this article informative but would have preferred more about Mfume's past, since it is tainted.

I didn't gain much from this article other than the councilman no longer running in the election. I wish there had been more factual information to complete the article because I finished reading with more questions than I had after reading the first sentence.

I think this is an average article. It is not too interesting. It has legit sources and is written well. I don't think it is important and interesting enough to recommend.

Needs more sources and more information. Seems like it was put together way too quickly.

I would consider this good journalism because the journalist did a good job providing background information. If a reader was not familiar with Kweisi Mfume, they definitely got a feel of what leadership roles he had. This article also had plenty of quotes which showed that there was a lot of research involved.

Can this even be considered journalism? It's all here say of what could happen. Rumors about Mfume running, and really it was a waste of time.

It was an okay story nothing really jumped out or they just called him a perennial candidate but didn't say why.

It is somewhat one sided but yes it covers all of the important details.

This is good because of its use of quotes as factual input. This isn't a controversial issue really either so it doesn't need (or have) a lot of opinion in it.

I did not think this was good journalism because although it did state the facts there was no real story behind it. The title announces the main idea of the story and the idea was only touched on. The story did not hold my interest and was not very well sourced.

Although there are the makings for a good story, the reporter missed the mark in failing to interview mfume himself on whether or not he was planning to run for mayor. Regardless of whether or not Mfume is unable to speak on the issue, basing an entire article off of a quote from a secondhand source does not lead to a very convincing or seemingly factual article. It would have also been nice if the reporter had interviewed Marylanders on whether or not they were hoping for Mfume to run for mayor, and what their reactions are to the news that he is not planning to. It would have been beneficial since on more than one occasion the article states that Mfume is the city's "most famous perennial rumored candidate," and that Mfume was ... More »

Personally, I do not think this article was written well or with great detail. It hardly demonstrated any standard of professionalism and it was very repetitive. The grammar needs to be improved.

No, it is not good journalism. I believe this to be the case because it fails to give both sides of the story. It is also a story that fails to integrate meaningful quotes. It is evident that this reporter found quality sources and wrote a newsworthy pierce in timely fashion, yet the quality of the writing and quotes used is somewhat poor.

It was difficult to follow this writer's train of thought, and the piece read more like a list of random facts that are taken from other sources.

I wouldn't say that it is necessarily good journalism because of the lack of sources. The facts are sort of there, but there aren't really many professional sources to back up the content.

As many have pointed out before, this article is based on heresay. It did not state why Councilman D'Adamo is able to speak for Mfume and therefore diminshes any credability that this story and source has, especially since he is the sole source of the article. If attempts to reach Mfume were made they should have been listed. I also feel that the story is a little jumbled in terms of the presenation of facts listing Mfume's political history.

The article is very confusing, too much is going on. I also believe this is irrelevant, I would prefer more current news.