I didn't think this was a good example of journalism. The quotes were uneven for the two sides. On the support side they had a guy who spent 30-years with the EPA and thus his words hold some credibility. on the other hand, they had a random frederick resident. Also it seemed like the reporter was simply restating notes from a meeting instead of explaining the story and issue to the reader.

This article was well sourced and offered balanced information on a very relevant issue. Good journalism.

I think this is a fair and balanced article. It has quotes and opinions from both sides of the issues along with quotes from Justices that voted for and against the ruling. It gives all the background of the story and shows the National implications. I don't think its possible to say whether the author agreed or disagreed with the issue, they simply state the facts and allow the quotes from both sides give the opinions.

Explains relevancy, breaks down a scientific concept for easy comprehension and has numerous sources. Good journalism.

There will always be more than one opinion on an issue, and when people with public trust skew the facts and blatantly lie in order to prove their side of the story, it does nothing to benefit the public. I don't think Gleick is pushing his audience to believe the facts of Climate science (though he gives enough statistics and datas in order to do so), but is calling out the opposing side to stick to the facts, and pushing audiences to be more critical in their acceptance and analyzation of facts presented to them. In that same vein, he's pushing his audience to question what he's presented, pushing them to be active in their news gathering, which is overall exactly what citizens should do.

This story doesn't explain the concept of Charter Schools to fully understand why there would be opposition from the MCPS School Board. It attacks MCPS without giving readers enough information to come to their own opinion and will most likely push readers to the Op-Ed writers side.