Journalism Critics Wanted

Reader Comments
Back to blog

americans who want access to quality healthcare paid for by someone else, must take individual responsibility for reducing their need for healthcare services. this must include at a minimum taking responsibility for a healthy lifestyle including:
1.a proper daily diet emphasing fruits and vegetables as opposed to sugars,fats,and grease.
2.a proper balance of daily exercise.
3.a proper abstinence toward substance abuse of tobacco,alcohol and all drugs-(illegal,perscription and over the counter).
4.a proper management of anger/rage toward self and others.
5.a proper emphisize toward responsible sexual behavior.
without responsibile individual behaviors over a lifetime becoming more the norm ,americans can expect either higher costs or rationing for healthcare services in the future. the surprising lack of a discussion regarding the importance of individual behaviors in our healthcare reform debate is very disturbing.

george wood of WA 12:29PM July 19, 2009

It not only sounds like a revolution but Obama has started it!
This should not surprise anyone since he ran on this platform to be elected. People wanted change but not that type!
Remember, Obama did not receive a mandate to do all of this because about 45 million voters did not vote him!

Thomas F. Roush of IN 8:21PM May 31, 2009

I have been a subscriber for many years and have always enjoyed US News and World Report. Last year when our subscription was cut from fifty two copies to 26 copies I understood that our subscription price was doubled and that it was due to troubled times. I never understood why some issues were called "double issues" when there were the same am't of pages. No one was ever able to explain it. Also, I never understood why this change wasn't made when our subscription expired. We already paid for 52 issues per year. Now in 2009, without notice, our issues are cut to 12 per year which is another slap in the face. We are now paying 4 x's the original price because we are getting 1/4 of the issues that were promised in your advertising. I think we deserve a better answer than the answer we have been receiving, which was that we will be receiving more information in each issue. This is an insult to our intelligence. Thankyou, Michael Massi

Michael Massi 8:24AM January 22, 2009

1. Good teaching that motivates.
2. A relevant curriculum--one that relates to needs and interests.
3. A home that values education, providing support to the student AND school.
4. Most important: Students that come to school intent upon learning.
Unfortunately, there are numerous schools which have well-trained and willing teachers, state-of-the-art equipment and programs, where instructors are finding it impossible to carry out their mission. In these situations, many young people are coming to school with an attitude that defies the best of efforts. Teachers face disrespect, refusal to participate, and a peer culture that rewards non-compliance.

Ted Dederick of CA 5:56PM December 09, 2008

I was very disappointed by the media coverage in the last election. The media except where it is labeled as opinion should be impartical neither to the left or the right. As Sgt Friday use to say "Just the facts, " Normally the new president has a honeymoon with the country, But with the current situation it may just be a long weekend.
I remember the slogan of the campaign "Change" yet the appointees so far have been former Clinton staffers. That is not change nor do I believe something new.
Frankly the media has missed the boat on the financial crisis all parties need to look at themselves. Bush is acting like a lameduck, not taking a strong position and Obama is taking a page from FDR and not saying anything until January 20th. Congress particularly Dodd and Frank plus the leadership has to take some blame. The media has given them a free ride.

Harold R. Moore of MI 2:05PM November 22, 2008

At times, seems to me Editors fall into the same "Convenient Omissions" as do Journalists. Case in pint; Obama spoke to over 200,000 people in Germany, leading belief the gathering was just to hear Obama speak. The "Omission" was the 200,000 were there to attend a SPORTS RALLY, with reported FREE BEER.Just so happened that Obama's Public Relations planners scheduled his appearance to be there without telling the public.
Another instance of "Convenient Omission".Ronald Reagan was bargining with the Iranians ARMS FOR HOSTAGES, even before he became President and had no authority to do so. His envoys were Ollie North and Top Spook C.I.A. CASEY. That's why the hostages were released on the day of his inauguration as both Reagan & Iran fullfilled their promises. Look it up in your unpublished notes as the sands of time cover the tracks. We await surprises which are still hidden in this election.

Andrew Bungo of GA 11:56PM November 12, 2008

A famous writer once said, 'write what you know.' I believe this. If anyone asks me what I think of GWB, I will talk to them for hours on how he has screwed up this world. In my eyes Bush was only finishing his Daddy's war. I am a writer and have published a book a few years ago. Just write the truth. Freedom of speech still stands. The people have a right to know what is going on in this world. And the writers can only relay what they have been told by their sources wether or not it is true, is another story. Just as long as the writers do their job, there is no problem. Sometimes we have no control over what stories are true or not. Do we really know if our sources are giving us the full story? I could write a story tomorrow going on all that my source told me, but do I really know if it was the truth? Maybe they should all sit down and compare notes. Discuss what stories they have. And work together as a team.

Lmora of NV 1:33AM November 02, 2008

I was somewhat surprised at your naivete regarding the "war" on cancer. There will never be a cure for cancer (that would be available to the public). Cancer is a big business. It is a huge cash cow for hospitals, doctors, drug companies, medical equipment manufacturers, and researchers. It also acts as a method of population control.
When the choice in medicine is between saving lives and making money, making money will always win. Human life has no value compared to the dollar. It will always be that way in medicine. It is a business pure and simple.
A cure for cancer would mean an end the continuous flow of money for surgery, chemo, radiation, drugs, medical equipment, and research, not to mention the cushy jobs for the people at the American Cancer Society.
The only reason we have these so called "break throughs" is to keep the money flowing. How many grants and donations would be given if we were told there would never be a cure? None. So, they dangle the carrot in front of us in order to keep the money flowing. This is the false hope you mention in your editorial.
We keep hearing that a cure is difficult because cancer is not one disease but hundreds. Well, then why hasn't all the focus and effort been put into finding a cure for the most common and deadly forms of cancer like lung and breast cancer? After curing those we could move on to the next most common cancers.
They may already have the cure. Unfortunately it will never be known or made available to the public. People may as well throw their money down the drain if they are going to donate it to fight cancer.

Joe of NV 3:09PM October 31, 2008

Iraq's Quiet(A Question and Answer Session)
The Surge was in place when Iraq became quiet but all would likely agree that just because the Surge preceded Iraq's quiet does not mean the Surge caused Iraq's quiet.
Q. What caused Iraq to loose its quiet in the first place?
A. The Bush team attacked Iraq in 2003 - removing its sitting government, its army and police force.
Q. What happened after that?
A. Iraq sank into chaos. Iraq's civilians were on their own. They were shot-up and blown-up. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, a senior British diplomat and former ambassador to the United Nations described his observations this way:
And there was no American general that I could... establish who was given the accountable responsibility to make sure that the first duty of any government - and we were the government - was to keep law and order on the streets. There was a vacuum from the beginning in which the looters, saboteurs, the criminals, the insurgents moved very quickly.
Q. Was the Surge brought in to bring law and order to the streets of Iraq?
A. No. It was too soon to bring the Surge into Iraq. The Surge was brought in during Iraq's "2nd five year plan". The "1st five year plan" focused on getting a hydrocarbon law on the books. BIG OIL sat at the table during the hydrocarbon law creation.
The streets of Iraq were deadly during Iraq's "1st five year plan". The Iraqi non-combatants were expected to "DUCK" a lot and use other means to stay out of harms way.
Q. Aren't areas where there is no law and order considered ideal for nurturing terrorists?
A. Yes. The Bush team created a power vacuum in Iraq which was filled by Moqtada al-Sadr and his militia. Shooting and bombing continued, making Baghdad a very dangerous place.
Q. But eventually, the Surge did arrive - right?
A. Yes - during the "2nd five year plan"
Q. How did the Surge defeat al-Sadr's militia?
A. The Surge did not defeat al-Sadr's militia.
Q. Well...ok, then how long did it take the Surge to persuade al-Sadr's militia to surrender its arms?
A. The Surge did not persuade al-Sadr's militia to surrender its arms.
Q. In order to get peace and quiet in Iraq, wouldn't al-Sadr's militia need to stop shooting and bombing?
A. Yes.
Q. Did al-Sadr's militia stop shooting and bombing?
A. Yes.
Q. Why?
A. Moqtada al-Sadr unilaterally declared a six month cease-fire. His militia's guns and bombs fell quiet. And Iraq became quiet.
At the end of the first six month cease-fire, another six month cease-fire was declared. Iraq's quiet continued.
Q. Doesn't it sound like Moqtada al-Sadr played a significant role in bringing peace and quiet to Iraq?
A. Yes.
Q. Did ANYone give Moqtada al-Sadr ANY credit for his role in Iraq's quiet?
A. Yes. Both General Petraeus and the United Nations gave credit to Moqtada al-Sadr for his role in bringing quiet to Iraq.
Q. And Mr. Bush?
A. A list, possibly published for American consumption stated that Mr. Bush, General Petraeus and the Surge brought quiet to Iraq. That list made no mention of Moqtada al-Sadr's name.
Remember what the White House spokeswoman said:
Mr. Bush does not chase polls
He stands on principle
And delivers results
Perhaps the "delivers results" part could do with further clarification.

bezelt johnson of IL 8:38PM September 06, 2008

From where I sit it seems the press usually reports storys from a negatively critical or complaining perspective. The good news from Irag does not get the same broad coverage as the bad news from Irag. So yes, the press has not provided balanced reporting in Irag or to President Bush, nor to Senator Clintons campaign. These comments from me; a Republican that did not vote for Bush and that did not support the war but once there did support the surge.

of OR 12:20PM September 06, 2008