NewsTrust.net - Blog

Introducing Comments

2009-11-20T11:46:35-08:00

We're pleased to announce a new feature on NewsTrust: Comments.

To make NewsTrust more interactive and engaging for our community, we've just opened comments on all our story pages and a couple topic pages. This is a great way to discuss the news with other members, in addition to our reviewing stories on our site.

During our initial beta stage, comments are open to trusted members only-- NewsTrust reviewers with a member level of 3.0 or higher. Trusted Members typically review often on the site, have received favorable ratings from other members, with a positive validation score from NewsTrust staff.

Comments are now open on our Health Care and Climate Change topic pages. To see what our community is talking about, click the "Comments" link at the top of either page, as shown in the screen shot below.

Trusted Members: Add a Comment
 If you are already a Trusted Member, try adding a comment today! You can can now comment on any story page (or on topic pages that have the "Comments" link shown above). To add a comment, simply click on the "Comments" link (or scroll to the bottom of the page), then type your notes in the "Add a Comment" box. Check our Reviewer FAQ for the fine details about adding comments, and email us at community@newstrust.net if you have any questions.

Comments are a great way to compare notes with fellow reviewers, pose questions, recommend stories and discuss other issues related to these hot topics. Please keep the conversation civil and constructive. We've created comments to strengthen our community and make it a better place to talk about the news -- and we're counting on you to help make that happen.

How to become a Trusted Member
 If you are not yet a Trusted Member on NewsTrust, here are some of the ways you can increase your member level and qualify for that status:

• Review often
Our top rated reviewers review and post stories regularly and thoroughly. Try to review at least a couple times per week and answer as many questions as you can. To review stories on our site, click 'Review' next to any story title; a good place to start is our home page.

• Focus on the journalism
Here at NewsTrust, we try to rate stories based on the quality of the journalism, not whether we agree with the views presented in these stories. For tips on how to review on our site, check our review guide.

• Fill your profile
Take a moment to update your member profile, so other members can get to know you. The more you share about yourself, the higher your member level, and the more your ratings count. Be sure to add a picture if you can.

To find out more about Trusted Members, check our FAQ.

Based on your feedback during this beta phase, we expect to open more pages for comments on our site, and make this feature available to more members. Check out this exciting new feature and tell us what you think!

Enjoy!

-- The NewsTrust Team

Psychology News Hunt Results

2009-11-18T11:41:39-08:00

How do we make civic and political decisions? Why is it so hard to empathize with views different than our own? To find answers to these questions and more, last week we teamed up with the award-winning nonprofit magazine Miller-McCune in a News Hunt for good journalism on Psychology -- with a focus on how it affects our politics.

Timely stories that related social trends and cultural issues to the science that explains our actions were not easy to come by -- not a surprise, given what the Project for Excellence in Journalism called a lack of editor enthusiasm for science reporting in major newspapers. But below the surface we found an informative sampling of stories from a range of sources that included magazines, mainstream newspapers and niche blogs.

We posted 57 stories in all (36 news and 21 opinion), 29 of which received three or more reviews. Here's a list of some of our top rated stories:

News
God, the Army and PTSD - Boston Review
When soldiers snap - New York Times
Does biased news have a 'time bomb' effect? - Miller-McCune

Opinion
Are there asexuals among us? - Scientific American
Healing our troubled vets - Los Angeles Times

For a full list of our most trusted psychology stories, click here.

The Political Divide
We kicked off our News Hunt last Monday by looking for good journalism about the American political divide and and what's causing America's culture wars.

Miller-McCune reported on a fascinating study by a researcher at the London School of Economics and Political Science who identified a so-called "time bomb effect" that comes with constant exposure to biased news:

"Michael Bruter, a senior lecturer in European politics at the school, fed a steady diet of slanted newsletters about Europe and the European Union — either all good news or all bad — to 1,200 citizens of six countries over two years.

Over time, Bruter found, and without exception, the readers subconsciously adopted the bias to varying degrees and changed their view of the EU and of themselves as Europeans, a few of them in the extreme. Surprisingly, they didn't register any change right after the newsletters stopped — not until full six months later, when they had obviously let down their guard."

This story also addressed the impact of media bias in the United States, where the politically conservative Fox News and liberal MSNBC hold the highest cable news ratings.

In a similar story, an ABC News column discussed a Stanford University study showing that the most outspoken and extreme political pundits are often motivated by the belief that their views are widely held, but are probably wrong.

The Psychology of Temptation
To give our reviewers an alternative to research about the political realm, we compared a few stories about what drives temptation, from Scientific American and Scienceblogs.com. Our reviewers gave high marks to Don't Eat the Marshmallow Yet, a video speech from Ted Talk, which made an important point about the value of delayed gratification -- and was also fun to watch.

The Psychology of Climate Change
On Tuesday we turned to the approaching Copenhagen Climate Conference as an opportunity to learn what influences popular attitudes about climate change. The Guardian's Adam Corner called psychology the "missing link" between policy and action in the debate over how to address climate change:

"The assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have provided the scientific evidence of human impact on the climate, and a glimpse of what the future may hold if we don't act fast. But while the consensus may be growing on the need for changes in behaviour, we're no closer to understanding how we're going to do it. Attempting an unprecedented shift in human behaviour without the input of psychologists is like setting sail for a faraway land without the aid of nautical maps."

Research shows, he added, that many people don't feel threatened by climate change because they don't feel personally vulnerable to it. "People simply don't worry about things they can't see (or even imagine)," he wrote. The solution? Campaigns encouraging lifestyle changes that pay off when undertaken en masse.

Larry O'Hanlon also wrote in Discover News that public impressions about the severity of climate change had delayed action. Many people are not convinced that climate change is as serious as most scientists claim, he said, in large part because scientists have failed to make an effective case that it is a real and urgent issue.

The Psychology of War
The highlight of our News Hunt came with our comparison of stories about the psychology of war and conflict-induced stress, which we featured in recognition of Veterans Day. This theme brought us some of our highest rated stories.

In "God, the Army and PTSD," our top rated story in this News Hunt, a Boston Review writer investigated whether religious pressure had interfered with returning soldiers' ability to get effective treatment for PTSD. In extensive research and interviews with soldiers, the Boston Review found that religious healing, even in an Army where most identify as Christian, prevented some soldiers from receiving medical treatment for this condition:

"the great difficulty veterans experienced in getting psychiatric care—greater than before—was not a product of cost-cutting, but of conviction: many Bush administration officials believed that soldiers who supported the war would not face psychological problems, and if they did, they would find comfort in faith. ... [Roger] Benimoff and the others who returned with devastating psychological injuries found a faith-based bureau within the VA. At veterans’ hospitals, chaplains were conducting spirituality assessments of patients.

The story of the mistreatment of returning veterans from Iraq is well known and shocking. But the role of religious ideology in that mistreatment—how, inside the government, it was a potent tool in the betrayal of an overwhelmingly Christian Army—is much less known."

The story quoted military officials and caregivers who tried to discredit PTSD, even in the face of soldier suicides (if they "believed in God and country," one official said, "they would not come home with PTSD”).

A New York Times article examined PTSD in the context of the massacre at the Fort Hood military base in Texas. The Times looked at the evolution of diagnosing and treating trauma:

"[Major Nidal Malik Hasan's] case invites a look at the long history of psychiatric medicine in war, if only because of his status as a battlefield psychiatrist, and the chance that his own psyche was, on some level, undone by the kind of stress he treated.

Over the centuries, soldiers have often broken under such stress, and in modern times each generation of psychiatrists has felt it was closer to understanding what makes soldiers break. But each generation has also been confounded by the unpredictability with which aggressions sometimes explode, in a fury no one sees coming."

Our community also gave good reviews to an LA Times editorial on the deficiencies of care for traumatized soldiers and an ABC News story on whether Hasan's actions could be considered terrorism or mental illness.

More Psychology Stories
Several other stories from our partners at Miller-McCune received high ratings. "I'd like the same plan better if it was Bill Clinton's" looked at how "implicit racism" affects many Americans' political views, health care reform being the prime example. Another story, "The biggest roadblock to change may be in our minds," explored another side of the health care debate -- how innate mechanisms cause us to cling to the status quo and can make large-scale change unpalatable.

Other noteworthy stories included a Scientific American article on how we make purchases, a Slate report that explained how animal research benefits child psychology, and a Psychology Today post about a study that showed people are more generous when researchers invoked god.

Check out our full listing of stories from this Psychology News Hunt on our Psychology page.

Thanks to our Partners
We're very grateful to our partners at Miller-McCune for their enthusiastic support and active participation in this News Hunt. Thanks especially to Michael Todd, Janice Sinclaire and Tom Jacobs for personally reviewing, posting and recommending stories for this News Hunt. It was a true pleasure to collaborate with you to find quality journalism on this fascinating topic!

This Week: Who Runs Climate Change?
This week NewsTrust is joining forces with the Washington Post's WhoRunsGov site to find good journalism about lobbying, climate change and the environment. As the debate over a climate change bill begins in CongressWe are looking for quality news and opinion on the Washington lobbyists working to influence lawmakers on these issues, leading up to a U.S. Congress vote on climate change in early 2010. Join our News Hunt by reviewing (or posting) stories on our Lobbying page.

WhoRunsGov features profiles of prominent government officials, lobbyists and experts "who comprise the world of unofficial Washington." We're honored to work with them to bring more transparency to the debate over climate change. After you've reviewed a couple related stories on NewsTrust, we invite you to apply what you have learned to help fill profiles of climate change lobbyists on their site.

-- by Derek Hawkins, with Kaizar Campwala and Fabrice Florin

NewsTrust Member Awards - First Winners

2009-11-05T12:57:03-08:00

Today, we're pleased to announce the first winners of the NewsTrust Member Awards!

This new monthly program rewards members of the NewsTrust community who make exceptional contributions to our cause (see our original blog announcement).

For the month of October, we're delighted to feature six outstanding reviewers for their leadership in fulfilling our mission, and for their achievements in a variety of categories, such as Top Rated or Most Active Reviewer (see below).

Meet the Winner s
Here are our Member Award winners for October 2009:

• Top Rated Reviewer - Chris Finnie

• Most Thorough Reviewer - Richard Riehl

• Most Active Reviewer - Dwight Rousu

• Top Rated Post - Patricia Blochowiak

• Most Reviewed Post - Cynthia Gilbert

• Trusted Member of the Month - Jo Bobenhouse Smith

Congratulations to our first round of Member Awards winners! It's a true pleasure to honor your enlightening contributions to our site -- and to the NewsTrust mission. Your participation is an inspiration to us all.
Here's a breakdown of each winner's contributions this month -- and how they were selected for their award.

Highest Rated Reviewer 
The October award for Highest Rated Reviewer goes to Chris Finnie. Chris earned high ratings on her insightful and witty reviews of stories from the Washington Post, New York Times, MinnPost and others. She has once again shown herself to be one fo the most respected members of our community.

The Highest Rated Reviewer award goes to the member whose story reviews have the highest average rating for the month. The member must have completed ten or more reviews and received at least ten ratings from other trusted members.

Most Thorough Reviewer 
Richard Riehl took the time and care to answer as many as 20 questions in many of his story reviews, earning him October's Most Thorough Reviewer award. Richard used our review form to the max and added his notes and comments on important stories from the Chicago Tribune, the Daily Beast and more.

The reviewer whose reviews are the most thorough -- filling out most or all fields of the review form -- wins the Most In-Depth Reviewer award for the month. We calculate this by finding the average number of answers a reviewer provides; the reviewer must have done ten or more story reviews to qualify.

  Most Active Reviewer 
The Most Active Reviewer award goes to NewsTrust NewsHound Dwight Rousu, who reviewed 135 stories in the month of October. That's an average of more than 4 story reviews per day. On top of that, Dwight often had a quip to go along with his ratings.

The Most Active Reviewer is a simple but key award that goes to the reviewer who posted the most story reviews for the month.

Highest Rated Post 
Patricia Blochowiak is the winner of the October award for Highest Rated Post, for posting "More is Less," a top-rated podcast from NPR's This American Life, that investigated forces behind rising health care costs. The story garnered an overall rating of 4.6 from NewsTrust members.

The award for Highest Rated Post goes to the member who posted the story that got the most favorable reviews from other trusted members. To qualify, the story must have at least five reviews.  

Most Reviewed Post 
October's winner for Most Reviewed Post is Cynthia Gilbert, who posted "Tricky o's 'doctored' photo" from the New York Post. Seventeen NewsTrust members reviewed the news report, which got an overall rating of 2.1 (Cynthia gave it a 1.3), earning it a spot as one of the featured stories during our Bad Journalism News Hunt.   

The member who posts the story with the most reviews earns this award for the month. Candidates must have received five or more favorable reviews from trusted members to win this prize.   

Trusted Member of the Month  
Our Trusted Member of the Month is Jo Bobenhouse Smith, whose frequent reviews and thoughtful notes helped our ratings of some of October's most important news items. Since signing up in October, Jo has reviewed well over 100 stories -- thank you for your wonderful contributions, Jo!

The Trusted Member award goes to the member who, through his or her reviews and other activity on the site, best embodies the NewsTrust spirit in the eyes of the editors. Candidates must have done ten or more reviews, and their validation must have increased to a three or more in the past month.

As a small token of our appreciation, we are sending each of this month's winners this NewsTrust mug:

Win a Member Award
 If you are a regular NewsTrust reviewer, you too could win one of our monthly awards. Here are some of the ways you can qualify for a member award and increase your own member level:
• Review often
Our top rated reviewers review and post stories regularly and thoroughly. Try to review at least a couple times per week and answer as many questions as you can. To review stories on our site, click 'Review' next to any story title; a good place to start is our home page.

• Focus on the journalism
Here at NewsTrust, we try to rate stories based on the quality of the journalism, not whether we agree with the views presented in these stories. For tips on how to review on our site, check our review guide.

• Fill your profile
Take a moment to update your member profile, so other members can get to know you. The more you share about yourself, the higher your member level, and the more your ratings count. Be sure to add a picture if you can.
 How Member Awards Work
 At the end of each month, NewsTrust editors tally the results for each award and announce the winners in a blog post and email newsletter. Winners can only win one award per year. If they qualify for two awards in the same month, they're awarded the "higher" prize.   NewsTrust staff and directors cannot not qualify for these awards. Member awards will be given through the end of the year, for reviews posted in November and December. Tell us what you think of this new community program. Drop a comment here on the blog -- or email us directly at editors-at-newstrust.net.

Support our Work
This week, we're calling on you to support our work by making a personal donation to NewsTrust. For the past three years, we've provided our free public service thanks to the MacArthur Foundation, the Ashoka Foundation, the Ayrshire Foundation, the Sunlight Foundation, Hap Perry, Mitch Kapor, Craig Newmark and many other generous donors. But the economic crisis has changed everything, and foundation grants or large donations have become very scarce.

So we're turning to valued members like you to support our cause. Our continued growth depends on you. If you find our service useful, please donate today, so we can continue to help citizens find quality news --
and make informed decisions. Your contribution will fund site improvements, new tools, community outreach, news literacy programs and much more. We're independent and nonprofit, which means anything you give goes directly to our cause -- and it's tax-deductible.

Help us promote good, reliable journalism -- make a donation to NewsTrust today!

by Derek Hawkins, Kaizar Campwala and Fabrice Florin

Bad Journalism: News Hunt Results

2009-10-28T12:45:20-07:00

Last week, we hosted our first-ever News Hunt for Bad Journalism, to identify news reports and opinions with serious flaws -- stories that we found inaccurate, biased, irresponsible or superficial.

With the help of professor Sally Lehrman and her journalism students from Santa Clara University, we reviewed a wide range of news reports, blog posts, columns, cable news and radio talk shows from across the political spectrum. (See SCU's own news release about this project)

For an overview of this News Hunt, check our original blog post (which was updated throughout the week with new stories for review). Together, we posted 32 stories which we considered to be bad journalism, 21 of which received a NewsTrust rating. For a full listing of stories reviewed in this News Hunt, check all our rated stories, as well as our least trusted stories posted in the past 90 days.

Here are the results of this News Hunt for Bad Journalism.

Least Trusted Stories
For this News Hunt, NewsTrust editors hand-picked stories for review, focusing mostly on political topics covered by mainstream sources, with the goal of highlighting flawed or questionable stories from some of the news outlets that people read and watch most (e.g. cable news and talk radio). We also took great care to feature stories representing political viewpoints from the left, right and center. What we wound up with is not a "worst of the worst" list, but a roundup of stories from a variety of media that our staff and community found to be examples of bad journalism.

Here are some of our least trusted stories for this News Hunt:

News Report (U.S.)
Tricky o's 'doctored' photo by Charles Hurt - New York Post

News Report (U.K.)
Racial tension simmers on Martha's Vineyard as Barack Obama arrives - Daily Telegraph

Opinion from the Right
Excuses wearing thin for Obama, media pals by Steve Huntly - Chicago Sun Times

Opinion from the Left
Republicans hit new low by Randi Rhodes (blog)

Cable News Pundit from the Right
What's Obama gonna give me? by Glenn Beck - Fox News (video)

Cable News Pundit from the Left
Conservative infighting dismantles GOP by Keith Olbermann - MSNBC (video)

Media Watchdog from the Right
MSNBC Goes Into Astroturf Mode by Jeff Poor - Newsbusters

Media Watchdog from the Left
Attack on White House criticism of Fox follows years of GOP assaults on media - Media Matters

We compared different types of stories throughout this News Hunt: news reports on Monday, opinions on Tuesday, pundits from the right on Wednesday, pundits from the left on Thursday, media watchdogs on Friday, and fact-checkers on Saturday. Here are our findings for each category.

Biased News Reports
Of the three news reports we featured, reviewers noted sourcing and fairness as major problems. They were most aggressive with "Tricky o's 'doctored' photo" from the New York Post, which decried a group of physicians President Obama invited to the White House to show their support for health care reform. The story quoted two Republican opponents of reform, but didn't seek comments from the doctors themselves -- nor the reported "thousands" in the medical community who oppose reform. "The author makes many claims that are not backed up with evidence," Danielle S. Scharf wrote. "This article is very opinionated and one-sided."

An article on the Obama Administration's criticism of Fox News -- written by Fox News -- quoted the network's staff and commentators, including Karl Rove, but did not seek response from White House officials or third-party sources. And an article in the Telegraph on Obama's summer visit to Martha's Vineyard contained no interviews, only quotes from the comments section of a local newspaper.

Irresponsible Opinions
The opinions we reviewed were harder to pin down. Our reviews tended to involve questions of responsibility and context, rather than the more straightforward principles of fairness and sourcing (which are not required for opinions, unlike news reports). An op-ed from the Chicago Sun-Times overwhelmingly earned our community's disapproval: presumptive and short on factual evidence, Steve Huntly's "Excuses wearing thin for Obama, media pals" was condemned by almost all of the NewsTrust members who reviewed it -- Huntly "makes assertion upon assertion but fails to provide documentation," Peter Henry said in his review.

Our community was split on the other two opinions we featured in this comparison: "Lack of universal health care is a mass killer" from the Progressive received a mediocre 3.0, while "Why Fox News is un-American" from Newsweek received a 3.5 overall -- but widely divergent ratings from different members (compare reviews from SCU student Christine Ahlstrom and Jim Lang). Join the discussion and add your reviews to these stories.

Worst Pundits from the Right and Left
On Wednesday and Thursday we examined stories from some of the most contentious and notoriously partisan names in broadcast journalism. Our community readily called out cable and radio pundits for their political bias, lack of fairness and cherry-picking of facts, and our overall ratings don't reflect a favoritism for either side.

From the right, we reviewed clips from Fox News's Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, and a comment from Rush Limbaugh's radio show. We followed a similar pattern for those on the left, reviewing clips from MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Rachael Maddow, and a blog post from liberal radio personality Randi Rhodes.

The highest rated was Maddow's "Keeping the pressure on Reid," which received a poor 2.8; Beck's "What's Obama gonna give me" scored lowest at 1.6.

Partisan Media Watchdogs
Media critics and watchdogs can be a valuable resource to identify bad journalism. But we found that some media watchdogs have their own political agendas, leading them to spread more bias and misinformation as a result. A NewsBusters analysis called Keith Olbermann hypocritical for "cheerleading" the Obama Administration's fight with Fox News after having defended MSNBC against similar charges from the Bush Administration; several of our members criticized it for being shallow, unfair and poorly contextualized. An almost mirror-image story from Media Matters slammed Republican leaders for a history of attacks on media outlets, including CNN and the New York Times. Our reviewers pointed out that neither piece commented on whether either administration's media strategy was effective or justified.

Neutral Fact-Checkers
We closed out our News Hunt for Bad Journalism on a positive note, by featuring some of our most trusted fact-checkers. The final two stories we reviewed in this News Hunt received overwhelmingly positive reviews. PolitiFact compiled a list of "recent distortions" and "a few truthful statements" about health care reform and offered brief explanations of why each was false or accurate. And FactCheck looked at the ambiguity of polls attempting to measure public attitudes toward a government-run health insurance program. Both of these stories were carefully non-partisan, supported by ample factual evidence and consulted multiple independent sources in their analysis.

For a full listing of the stories we reviewed last week, visit our rated stories page -- and for a list of our lowest-rated stories, check our least trusted stories.

Thanks to our partners
We'd like to thank Santa Clara University professor Sally Lehrman and her journalism students for participating in our first News Hunt for Bad Journalism last week. Kudos to the following, who added their reviews to some of the news and opinion we posted: Danielle S. Scharf, Christine Ahlstrom, Megan Wirth, Kathryn Klein, Taylor Bernal, Krista Kelley, Xenia Pineda, Morgan Doherty, and Ada Onuegbe.

We'd also like to thank our advisors Howard Rheingold (Stanford University) and Michael Bugeja (Iowa State University), who wrote the NewsTrust News Literacy Guides that we use as reference in our searches for good -- and bad -- journalism. Howard recently published "Crap Detection 101" and Michael penned "Think Like a Journalist."

If you come across other examples of bad journalism in coming months, please post them on our site (be sure to tag them "Bad Journalism" under "Topics," so the stories will be listed in our Bad Journalism pages).

Support our work
If you think NewsTrust provides a valuable service, please consider making a donation to our cause. Your contribution will help promote good journalism -- and pay for quality news feeds, new tools, site improvements, community outreach and educational programs. We're nonprofit and funded through grants and donations from members like you. Can you show your support today with a one-time, tax-deductible donation?

-- by Derek Hawkins and Fabrice Florin, with Kaizar Campwala

Photo: AP

Help Expose Bad Journalism

2009-10-19T12:43:20-07:00

This week, help us promote good journalism by exposing the bad.

Bad Journalism News Hunt
From Monday through Sunday, we'll be hosting a News Hunt for Bad Journalism, to highlight journalism with serious flaws -- news reports and opinions that are inaccurate, biased, irresponsible or superficial. For this special News Hunt, we will be joined by journalism students from Santa Clara University, led by professor Sally Lehrman.

Each day this week, we'll feature different examples of bad journalism from a variety of sources across the political spectrum, and ask you to rate them, so we can identify the worst stories at the end of the week. Here's how we're breaking it down:

Monday - News Reports

Tuesday - Opinions

Wednesday - Pundits from the Right

Thursday - Pundits from the Left

Friday - Media Watchdogs

Saturday - Fact-Checkers

(note that this blog post was updated throughout the week with new stories for review -- see below)

News Literacy Guides
Since this News Hunt for Bad Journalism is a departure from our normal routine, we encourage you to consult our News Literacy Guides for helpful tips. First, read these articles from two of our esteemed advisors, who are both journalism professors:

"Crap Detection 101" by Howard Rheingold (Stanford University)

"Think Like a Journalist" by Michael Bugeja (Iowa State University)

Also check out NewsTrust's Quick Review Guide on how to review a story. These articles and tutorials will help you ask the right questions and quickly identify bias, misinformation, weak sourcing, shallowness and other problems in reporting.

News Comparisons
How do you rate the stories below? Throughout this week, we've compared questionable stories from several categories.

News Reports

• Obama team continues efforts to isolate Fox News - Fox News

• Tricky o's 'doctored' photo - New York Post

• Racial tension on Martha's Vineyard simmers as Barack Obama arrives - Daily Telegraph

Opinions

• Excuses wearing thin for Obama, media pals - Chicago Sun-Times

• Lack of universal health care is a mass killer - The Progressive

• Why Fox News is un-American - Newsweek

Pundits from the Right

• What's Obama gonna give me? - Glenn Beck (Fox News)

• America 2009: Banana Republic - Rush Limbaugh (Rush Limbaugh Show)

• Does Kevin Jennings support NAMBLA? - Sean Hannity (Fox News)

Pundits from the Left

• Conservative infighting dismantles GOP - Keith Olbermann (Countdown)

• Republicans hit new low - Randi Rhodes (Randi Rhodes Show)

• Keeping the pressure on Reid - Rachel Maddow (The Rachel Maddow Show)

Media Watchdogs

• Neutralizing the opposition - Washington Post - by Howard Kurtz

• Attack on White House criticism of Fox follows years of GOP assaults on media - Media Matters

• Obama bashed Bush Administration for criticizing NBC in 2008 - NewsBusters - by Noel Sheppard

Fact-Checkers

• Health care reform: A summary of recent distortions - PolitiFact

• Heather Graham Teaches Us About Polls - FactCheck

Join our News Hunt this week,to help us expose more stories that fail to uphold the journalistic standards that citizens rely on. To keep track of our scores, check our Least Trusted Stories page (listing our lowest-rated stories so far), as well as our Bad Journalism page (featuring recent stories for review).

And if you come across another example of bad journalism, please post it on our site (be sure to tag it "Bad Journalism" under "Topics," so it will be listed in our News Hunt pages).

Make A Donation
If you believe in our cause, please consider making a donation to NewsTrust. Your contribution will help promote good journalism -- and pay for quality news feeds, new tools, site improvements, community outreach and educational programs. We're nonprofit and funded through grants and donations from members like you. Can you show your support today with a one-time, tax-deductible donation?

-- by Fabrice Florin, Derek Hawkins and Kaizar Campwala

Health Care News Hunt - Final Results

2009-10-14T12:05:02-07:00

On Tuesday we wrapped up a 10-day Health Care News Hunt with the Huffington Post and its Eyes and Ears team. For an overview of this collaboration, check our HuffPost partner Matt Palevsky's first blog post, as well as our own project update.

With the help of our hosts, Kristin Gorski and Patricia Blochowiak, as well as 95 new members from the Huffington Post, we posted about 146 health care stories, 51 of which received a NewsTrust rating. Recent stories on this topic can be found on our Health Care page.

Here are the final results of our Health Care News Hunt.

Top Rated Stories on Health Care
Here are some of our top rated stories for this News Hunt:

More is Less - This American Life / NPR (podcast, 1 hour)

In Netherlands, Insurers Compete Over Quality of Care - NewsHour / PBS (video)

Going Out of Business? - FactCheck (News Analysis)

A Texas-Sized Health Care Failure - New York Times (Opinion) (see reviews)

The Lie Machine - Rolling Stone (Special Report)

"Don't Get Sick": The Truth About GOP Health Plans? - Huffington Post (News Analysis)

For a full listing of health care stories reviewed in this News Hunt, check our top rated stories, as well as the list of all stories posted in the past 10 days.

We focused on different types of stories throughout this News Hunt: mainstream news on Monday, opinions on Tuesday, TV news on Wednesday, fact-checkers on Thursday, comedy news on Friday, worst journalism on Saturday, and breaking news in the final days. Here are our findings for each category.

News Reports - The Public Option
We began our News Hunt last Monday, October 5th, by comparing news reports on debate in Congress over whether to include a government-run insurance plan -- a "public option" -- in a final health care reform bill. Most news stories we reviewed focused on how Congress would merge a bill that contains a public option provision with one that doesn't. Our top stories came from the Great Falls Tribune, the Hill, and Salon (read our original analysis here).

Opinions - The Public Option
The following Tuesday we compared three opinions that took different views on the controversial public insurance measure. A Republican state senator from Maryland argued against it in the Baltimore Sun; the founder of a failed insurance exchange firm wrote in the New York Times that without a public option reform would be ineffectual; and a blogger from Think Progress said political maneuvering is the Democrats' best hope for slipping the controversial measure past Republicans. Our community posted more than 20 reviews on these stories and found Cappy McGarr's op-ed in the Times to be most insightful (read our full results here).

TV News on Health Care
On Wednesday we featured TV news on health care. Our top rated video came from PBS's NewsHour, which examined the health care system in the Netherlands and the overhaul that took place there in 2006. The special report garnered high ratings from a dozen reviewers, who were impressed by its detail and diversity of sourcing. Fox News and MSNBC ran news reports on the public option, which our community dismissed as too partisan.

Fact-Checkers on Health Care
Since arguments over how to reform the nation's health care system boiled over with misinformation and accusation this summer, we've gone out of our way to feature those news outlets that scrutinize claims from all sides. On Thursday we focused on news analysis from fact-checkers and found that matters had calmed down significantly since August's death panel rumors dominated coverage.

FactCheck.org debunked a new health care ad from Americans for Prosperity that purported Medicare will be bankrupt in eight years. "Yikes," FactCheck wrote:

"Quite a scary claim to make about a program that encompasses 16 percent of the federal budget and benefits 45 million Americans. But the word "bankrupt" is far too strong to accurately describe Medicare’s problems. ... We don’t mean to say that the projections about the future of the HI trust fund shouldn’t be taken seriously, or that Medicare in general isn’t facing long-term funding issues. But it’s not going to be “bankrupt in eight years.”

We also featured the indefatigable PolitiFact's excellent roundup of high-profile statements about health care, as rated on their Pulitzer Prize-winning Trust-O-Meter. Nine pages of vetted public statements earned a high rating from NewsTrust -- and we'll be checking back as a reform bill makes its way through Congress.

Comedy News on Health Care
We closed out our week with a comparison of three Daily Show clips on the health care debate -- two from August and one from September -- to see how leading news comedian and media critic Jon Stewart had covered this topic. In his most recent clip, Stewart knocked Democrats in Congress for failing to include a public option in the Finance Committee's bill, despite holding a super majority in the Senate.

Bad Journalism on Health Care
Over the weekend, we compared our dogs of the week -- the lowest-rated stories we found on health care. "What we would have told Obama" from Fox News, "Tricky 'O's doctored photo" from the New York Post, and a news analysis from NewsBusters each received a rating of 2.0 or lower from our community.

Breaking News: Insurance Industry Report
This Monday, October 12th, ahead of the Finance Committee's vote, the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) released a report commissioned by the top health insurance industry trade group that said reform proposals in Congress would increase costs for American families. The report was cited in most stories we reviewed on the Finance Committee's vote -- and drew swift condemnation from the White House, Congressional Democrats and many observers. We rounded up reactions from prominent health care bloggers.

Ezra Klein, of the Washington Post, was extremely critical, comparing the report to similar studies conducted by PWC on behalf of tobacco companies:

"[I]f the PWC's report doesn't offer much in the way of trustworthy policy analysis, it is an interesting looking at the changing politics of the issue. In short, the insurance industry is getting scared. After many months of quiet constructiveness, they're launching a broadside on the week of the Senate Finance Committee's vote. The White House, which had a pleasant meeting with the industry's leadership last week, was shocked by the report, and so too was the Senate Finance Committee. The era of cooperation seems to be over, and they weren't given much advance warning. But the report might have another impact, too: The evident anger and fear of the insurance industry might do a bit to reassure liberals that this plan is worth supporting, after all."

The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn noted several omissions and inconsistencies in the PWC report, and in an update said the insurance industry's conflict of interest was all too clear. And Kevin Drum, of Mother Jones, said a weakening of the penalty in the Baucus Bill for not purchasing health insurance probably motivated the report.

Breaking News: Senate Finance Committee Votes
Our News Hunt ended this Tuesday with breaking news coverage of the highly anticipated vote on the Senate Finance Committee's health care bill. Nicknamed the "Baucus Bill" after Sen. Max Baucus, the Democratic committee chairman, the legislation won approval yesterday with 13 Democratic votes and one Republican vote from Maine Senator Olympia Snowe.

The Politico portrayed the vote as a milestone for both Baucus and President Obama, who has repeatedly called health care his top domestic priority. And since the committee was widely expected to approve the bill along party lines, several publications featured the defection of Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe as a key aspect of the story -- but some news outlets were split over just how her vote was secured.

"The vote moves President Barack Obama's goal of overhauling the nation’s health care system one step closer to reality," the Politico wrote, adding:

"Baucus’s hand was strengthened markedly when Snowe became the only Senate Republicans to vote for health reform —- ending weeks of speculation about whether any Republicans would sign onto the Democratic reform bill."

But according to the LA Times, Snowe's vote was less an achievement for Baucus than for the White House, "which had heavily courted Snowe, and it allowed overhaul advocates to claim that there was a vestige of GOP support for the measure." Bloomberg echoed this notion in its story on the vote:

"That marked the first time a Republican in either the Democratic-controlled Senate or House has supported the revamp legislation, President Barack Obama's top domestic priority. ... Baucus had spent months courting Snowe and other Republicans, making his committee the last of five congressional panels to complete its version of the legislation."

Thanks to our Partners and Hosts

We'd like to thank our partners at the Huffington Post and Eyes and Ears for making this a lively and successful News Hunt! It was a pleasure to work with HuffPost Citizen Journalism Editor Matt Palevsky, as well as HuffPost Politics editors Dan Froomkin and Rachel Weiner, and all 95 Huffington Post members, who made invaluable contributions to our search for great journalism on health care. Kudos as well to our gracious hosts Kristin Gorski and Patricia Blochowiak, who led our community in this effort, reviewing dozens of stories and posting some true journalistic gems on this important issue. Last but not least, we're deeply grateful to our wonderful NewsTrust reviewers. Your collective recommendations have helped thousands of citizens find health care journalism that is informative, substantive and meaningful to their lives. Many thanks to you all for your hard work and great insights!

As Congress continues to negotiate a health care reform bill, we'll be tracking the best (and the worst) coverage from across the political spectrum on NewsTrust. Check our Health Care and U.S. Congress topic pages to weigh in on the latest news and opinion on this landmark debate -- and if you find a great story on health care, be sure to post it on NewsTrust for review!

- by Derek Hawkins and Fabrice Florin, with Kaizar Campwala

Health Care News Hunt Update

2009-10-07T11:37:58-07:00

On Monday we kicked off a week-long partnership with the Huffington Post and its Eyes and Ears team in to find great journalism about health care reform. For this Health Care News Hunt, our communities have teamed up to review news coverage of the ongoing health care debate, as Congressional leaders negotiate how to merge competing versions of a reform bill.
We'd also like to give a warm welcome to the eighty new members who have signed up for this News Hunt from Huffington Post so far. Thanks for joining forces with us for this important cause! For tips on how to review on NewsTrust, read our quick guide. And if you haven't already, check our HuffPost partner Matt Palevsky's excellent blog post about our goals for this project.
Here's an update on what we found so far, as well as as an invitation to review new stories today, with a focus on TV news coverage of this important issue.
First Results
Most of the news and opinions we've reviewed so far have dealt with the behind-the-scenes politics of passing reforms, as the bill enters the final stages of creation. This is a far cry from what we found in our last Health Care News Hunt in August, when coverage was dominated by raucous town hall meetings and false claims about "death panels."

Yesterday, in our weekly Sparring Opinions feature, we asked NewsTrust members to review two op-eds and a blog post on whether Congress should include a provision for a government-run insurance program -- a "public option" -- in the bill it will put to a vote in coming weeks. A Republican state senator from Maryland argued against it in the Baltimore Sun; the founder of a failed insurance exchange firm wrote in the New York Times that without a public option reform would be ineffectual; and a blogger from Think Progress said political maneuvering is the Democrats' best hope for slipping the controversial measure past Republicans.

Based on 24 reviews between the three stories, our members rated Cappy McGarr's op-ed in the New York Times, "A Texas-sized health care failure," highest. Founder of the now-defunct Texas Purchasing Alliance, McGarr wrote that personal experience convinced him health insurance exchanges -- a prominent alternative to the public option -- don't create enough competition to cut costs. "It would be smarter for Congress to revisit the idea of creating a public plan that could provide an attractive choice for consumers and real competition for private insurers, to give them the incentive to offer good coverage at affordable prices," he concluded.

Kristin Gorski, co-host of this week's Health Care News Hunt, called McGarr's story "compelling" and "clearly written," and Patricia Berrini gave it high marks for the author's expertise on the issue.

Igor Volsky's blog post from Think Progress also received a positive rating, though several members, like Kiku Botura, questioned the logic of waiting to add a public insurance option to the bill until late in deliberations. Our community dismissed the Baltimore Sun op-ed from Maryland State Senator Andy Harris for being light on factual evidence and rejecting the public option without explanation.

On Monday we opened our News Hunt by comparing news and analysis on the public option from mainstream sources. News centered on Montana Senator Max Baucus, who, as chair of the Senate Finance Committee, has emerged as the key player in crafting a health care reform bill.

The Great Falls Tribune, a daily newspaper from Baucus's home state, wrote that Baucus had upset Montana progressives when he voted against including a public option in his committee's bill.
"Baucus said "there's a lot to like" about a public option — a government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers — but in the end Baucus said he didn't see how a health care reform bill containing such a provision could pass the full Senate.
"My job is to put together a bill that will become law," Baucus told the committee before voting "no" on two public-option amendments on Tuesday. "In the Senate, that means my job is to put together a bill that gets 60 votes. Now I can count, and no one has been able to show me how they can get to 60 votes with a public option in the bill."
... Baucus says he supports the public option, having drafted a version of a public-option plan in his white paper released last November. But Baucus' critics say he has done little to try to make the public option a reality."
The Hill reported Baucus's decision pitted him against other Senate Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid, who have vowed to deliver on a public option.
"Having deferred the issue to Baucus this summer, Reid signaled on Thursday that he is prepared to join Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who both pushed a public option amendment that failed in a committee vote last Tuesday.

“We are going to have a public option before this bill goes to the president's desk," Reid said in a conference call with constituents on Thursday, as reported by the Las Vegas Sun. “I believe the public option is so vitally important to create a level playing field and prevent the insurance companies from taking advantage of us.”
On the same day, [Iowa Sen. Tom ] Harkin gave The Des Moines Register the same message, suggesting clearly that he will side with Reid against Baucus."
In a similar story, the Washington Post suggested negotiations could continue through November without the full support of Senate Democrats like Rockefeller and Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, both of whom have said the current versions of reform bills are deficient.

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times and Salon both spoke with Congressional and White House aides who say that the Obama Administration has been privately working to shore up Senate support for the public option ahead of a vote.
Today's Comparison: TV News on Health Care
All week long we'll be searching for quality news and opinion on health care reform and the bill making its way through Congress now.
Today we're focusing on how TV news networks are covering this issue (see our recommended stories below); on Thursday we'll feature fact-checkers, and on Friday we'll feature comedy news.

How are TV news networks covering the debate on health care reform? Which outlets are providing the best coverage, reporting on the issues with substance and balance? Try comparing these three TV news segments:
• In the Netherlands, insurers compete over quality of care - PBS NewsHour
• Breaking the bank? - Fox News

• House behind a public option - MSNBC
Join our News Hunt with the Huffington Post and Eyes & Ears -- visit our Health Care page and review or post a story today.
-- by Derek Hawkins, with Fabrice Florin and Kaizar Campwala

Sparring Opinions: The Public Option

2009-10-06T12:13:05-07:00

This week we are partnering with the Huffington Post and its Eyes and Ears team for a Health Care News Hunt.

We would like to welcome our new members from Huffington Post and thank them for joining forces with us to find quality news and opinion about health care reform and the new bill that’s now being debated in Congress. Each day this week, we're inviting you to compare stories in different categories: mainstream news on Monday, opinions on Tuesday, cable news on Wednesday, fact-checkers on Thursday, and comedy news on Friday.

Today, we're featuring Sparring Opinions. In recent weeks, debate over health care reform has hinged on whether Congress should include a controversial public insurance option in its final bill. For today's Sparring Opinions, we're comparing two op-eds and a blog post that offer different perspectives on this issue.

Andy Harris, a Republican state Senator from Maryland, rejects a public insurance option, arguing that insurance exchanges, along with other "common sense" reforms, are the most effective way to lower costs:
"Creating a health care "exchange" allows for affordable, accessible and portable insurance for millions of Americans. An "exchange" would let everyone choose their health care insurance from a broad range of options and allow their employer to help pay for it. Competition among insurers would bring down the cost of health care insurance, just as it brings down the cost of car or homeowners insurance."

In the New York Times, Cappy McGarr, founder of a failed insurance exchange firm in Texas, says he knows from experience that such alternatives to a public insurance program don't create enough competition to cut costs:
"If Congress now creates new exchanges, as seems increasingly likely, it must prevent this phenomenon by setting two national rules: Insurers have to accept everyone and have to charge everyone the same rates regardless of health status.

Such rules would force insurers to spread risk. But enforcement would also be difficult. ... It would be smarter for Congress to revisit the idea of creating a public plan that could provide an attractive choice for consumers and real competition for private insurers, to give them the incentive to offer good coverage at affordable prices."

Igor Volsky of Think Progress takes a different view entirely -- political maneuvering, he argues, is the only safe way for Congressional Democrats to secure a public insurance option in the final bill:

"Excluding the public option from the Senate bill could broaden the health care debate. Republicans will complain that they need assurances that a public option won’t be added in during conference. They’ll spend more energy questioning the constitutionality of the individual mandate, the wisdom of eliminating the overpayments to private insurers participating in Medicare Advantage, rationing abortions to women, and ensuring that legal immigrants don’t have access to care ... Democrats will preserve the integrity of the public option. It will remain intact, away from reformers who seek to transform it into a co-op or a “network” of state-based public plans.
Democrats could then add the public option to the final health care bill during conference, when they reconcile the House and Senate bills."

Which one of these do you find most insightful? Weigh in by adding your review to these three stories:

• Reform, not overreach - Baltimore Sun

• A Texas-sized health care failure - New York Times

• Why Reid shouldn't include the public option in the merged Senate bill - Think Progress

Thanks in advance for joining our Health Care News Hunt this week -- the more you review stories on health care reform, the more informed we all get about this important topic. If you need tips on how to review a story on our site, check our quick review guide. You're also welcome to post new stories on this topic. If you have any questions or comments, email us. Look forward to seeing your reviews and posts on our Health Care page.

-- Derek Hawkins

Win a Member Award

2009-09-30T11:12:49-07:00

We're pleased to announce the NewsTrust Member Awards!

Starting in October, NewsTrust will present monthly awards to some of of our best reviewers, to recognize their contributions in a variety of categories, such as Top Rated or Most Active Reviewer (see below).

We hope this will give our most committed members the honor they deserve for their hard work and dedication to NewsTrust's values.

In the first week of November, NewsTrust editors will analyze member activity from October and announce the winners on this blog, as well as on our home page and email newsletters. (UPDATE: Meet our Winners for October 2009)

Here are the six awards we're offering for reviewers who participate in the month of October. All NewsTrust members are eligible -- good luck!

• Top Rated Reviewer
This award will go to the member whose story reviews have the highest average rating for the month. The top rated reviewer must have completed ten or more reviews that month and received at least ten ratings from trusted members (with a member level of three or more).

• Most Thorough Reviewer
This award will go to the member whose reviews are the most in-depth, based on their average number of answers that month (e.g.: number of ratings, notes, links or quotes per review). The reviewer must have done ten or more story reviews that month to qualify.

• Most Active Reviewer
This award will go to the member who reviewed the most stories for the month. Ten or more reviews are needed to qualify.

• Top Rated Post
This award will go to the member who posted this month's top rated story. To qualify, this top rated story must have at least five reviews from trusted members.

• Most Reviewed Post
This award will go to the member who posted the story with the most reviews that month. To qualify, this story must have at least five favorable reviews from trusted members.

• Trusted Member of the Month
This award will go to the member who best applies the NewsTrust values in the eyes of the editors, through the quality of his or her reviews and other contributions to our cause. This member must have done ten or more reviews that month, these reviews must be favorably rated by other trusted members and his or her member level must be three or more.

Member award winners will be featured on our home page, newsletters and blog, and will also receive a NewsTrust mug or similar gift, as a token of our appreciation.

Winners can only receive one award per year. NewsTrust staff and directors cannot not qualify for these awards. Member awards will be given for the next three months, through the end of the year.

Here are some of the ways you can qualify for a member award and increase your own member level:

• Review often
Our top rated reviewers review and post stories regularly and thoroughly. Try to review at least a couple times per week and answer as many questions as you can. To review stories on our site, click 'Review' next to any story title; a good place to start is our home page.

• Focus on the journalism
Here at NewsTrust, we try to rate stories based on the quality of the journalism, not whether we agree with the views presented in these stories. For tips on how to review on our site, check our review guide.

• Fill your profile
Take a moment to update your member profile, so other members can get to know you. The more you share about yourself, the higher your member level, and the more your ratings count. Be sure to add a picture if you can.
Do you know someone who also appreciates good journalism? Send them an invitation to try out NewsTrust for themselves.

Please tell us what you think about this new community program! Drop a comment here on the blog, or email us directly at editors-at-newstrust.net.
UPDATED 11/05/09

Sparring Opinions: Iran's Nuclear Program

2009-09-29T11:46:22-07:00

Western leaders are reassessing their approach to Iran after recent disclosures about a secret nuclear facility and new missile tests. How should they address Iran's nuclear ambitions at this week's diplomatic talks in Geneva? How should President Obama approach Iran's leadership?

In today's Sparring Opinions we're comparing two op-eds that discuss these questions.

Scott Ritter, a prominent UN weapons inspector, argues in the Guardian that Iran's disclosure of the facility in Qom should not be met with tough language from Western leaders. Iran's move, he writes, should mark a step toward non-proliferation:
"the emergence of the existence of the Qom enrichment facility could very well mark the initiation of a period of even greater transparency on the part of Iran, leading to its full adoption and implementation of the IAEA additional protocol ... Calls for "crippling" sanctions on Iran by Obama and Brown are certainly not the most productive policy options available to these two world leaders. Both have indicated a desire to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Iran's action, in declaring the existence of the Qom facility, has created a window of opportunity for doing just that, and should be fully exploited within the framework of IAEA negotiations and inspections, and not more bluster and threats form the leaders of the western world."

Former National Security Council staffers Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, writing in the New York Times, agree that sanctions would be counterproductive, but call for intervention from the Obama Administration and international community that curbs weapons development and serves Iran's needs:
"the administration should seek a strategic realignment with Iran as thoroughgoing as that effected by Nixon with China. This would require Washington to take steps, up front, to assure Tehran that rapprochement would serve Iran’s strategic needs.
On that basis, America and Iran would forge a comprehensive framework for security as well as economic cooperation — something that Washington has never allowed the five-plus-one group to propose. Within that framework, the international community would work with Iran to develop its civil nuclear program, including fuel cycle activities on Iranian soil, in a transparent manner rather than demanding that Tehran prove a negative — that it’s not developing weapons. A cooperative approach would not demonize Iran for political relationships with Hamas and Hezbollah, but would elicit Tehran’s commitment to work toward peaceful resolutions of regional conflicts"

Tell us which of these Sparring Opinions you find most insightful -- and add your reviews to these two stories:

• Keeping Iran honest - The Guardian
• How to press the advantage with Iran - New York Times

-- Derek Hawkins