Win a Member Award

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

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

Our New Toolbar: A Visual Guide

Last week we launched a new version of our website, and you've probably noticed a lot of changes and improvements. Among the many new features we've created to make your NewsTrust experience better is the NewsTrust Toolbar. Our Toolbar makes reviewing and posting stories easier than ever.

The NewsTrust Toolbar At a Glance
Here's a quick overview of how to use our new toolbar.

Next time you use our toolbar, try clicking on all these buttons to get the most of this new feature. 

Here's a quick step-by-step walk-through on how to review a story with our new toolbar.

Reviewing a Story
To review a story on the new NewsTrust site, click on the story's title or on its yellow or gray "Review" button, just like before.

Clicking either of these links will take you to the story's original page; the NewsTrust Toolbar will display at the top, with the review form on the right hand side.

Read and review the story. If the review form is blocking part of the story's text, click the "Close" link  in the bottom left, or click "Review" at the top. The Toolbar will remain at the top of the screen. To reopen the review form, click "Review" again.

To close the Toolbar and only show the story on its original page, click the blue "X" in the top-right corner.

When you're finished your review, click the yellow "Save" button at the bottom of the review form. Once you do this, you can edit the story's info, share your review with a friend, or see all NewsTrust member reviews for the story. To go back to the NewsTrust home page, click the NewsTrust logo in the top-left corner in the Toolbar.

Posting a Story
To post a new story on NewsTrust using the Toolbar, copy the URL of the story you want to post, then click the yellow "Post a Story" link in the top-right corner of the NewsTrust home page. Paste the URL into the box that drops down.

The story you've chosen will open automatically, with the NewsTrust Toolbar at the top and the story edit form on the right.

Some of the story's info will be entered automatically -- check to make sure it's right, and add anything that's missing (author's name, topics, content type). When you're finished, click "Save" -- then give it a review! For an alternative way to post stories to NewsTrust, check our handy bookmarklet tool. For more info on how to review a story check our News Literacy Guide.

Sparring Opinions: Climate Change

World leaders met today at the United Nations summit to begin developing international policy on curbing emissions and preventing irreversible climate change. In today's Sparring Opinions we're comparing two op-eds that offer different views on whether the global economy is prepared to make large-scale changes to attain this goal.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown penned an opinion in Newsweek, arguing that the international community must reach a consensus by the end of the year, when leaders gather in Copenhagen to develop a formal plan. "If we miss this opportunity, there will be no second chance sometime in the future," he says, adding:

"Some argue that, amid demanding economic conditions, our resolve to meet environmental commitments should weaken, that the costs are too high. In fact, the opposite is true; a strong agreement in Copenhagen is essential for global economic recovery. For that recovery depends on the investment that an agreement will unleash. The economies that embrace the green revolution earliest will reap the greatest rewards."

Overhauling our current energy consumption will take too great a toll on world economies to be worthwhile in the short-term, writes Stephen F. Hayward, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, in the Wall Street Journal:

"the idea that we must act now to avoid bigger costs down the road just doesn't hold water. Simply put, the world of tomorrow will be considerably richer than today—and much better able to absorb the costs of climate change. Yale University's William Nordhaus, one of the top climate economists, thinks it is sound to allow about half or more of the prospective damage from climate change to simply occur—since the world 40 or 60 years from now will be in a much better situation to handle the economic effects."

Which of these op-eds do you find most insightful? Make your voice heard -- add your review to these two stories:

• Copenhagen or bust - Newsweek

• Alternatives are simply too expensive - Wall Street Journal

-- Derek Hawkins

Our New Site Just Launched

We just launched a new version of the NewsTrust website to make it easier for you to find good journalism online.

We created this new site to provide a better user experience for new visitors and experienced members alike, through features like a new toolbar and simpler review form, more visual appeal and and a streamlined site layout.

What's New
Here are some of the new features in this 4.0 release:

New Look

• new site layout shows more variety, less clutter, colorful graphics, wider pages and larger text
• simpler navigation bar features subjects we cover most often, with a search tool to find more
• streamlined home page is more visual, with different sections for a wider range of stories  
• news comparisons show how different news sources are covering our featured topic
• top stories grid shows recent news and opinion, updated 24/7, as well as editor picks
• new story listings are organized by subject, with sections for opinion and today's feeds
• new site footer at the bottom of every page helps you find pages you need more quickly

New Tools

• new toolbar lets you review stories more quickly (replacing our old popup windows)
• short review form makes it easier for new members to review (only 3 questions)
• guest reviews let visitors rate stories without signing up first (like a free trial)
• 'post a story' tool lets you submit new stories faster (and auto-fills story info)
• smart feeds show recommendations from trusted sources and insightful thinkers online
• quick guide provides helpful tips on how to review a story and build news literacy skills
• activity streams list all your recent reviews and posts on your member profile
• edit tools let trusted members (with a level of 3 or more) edit story and source info

... and much, much more

Go check out all these new features on our new site and let us know what you think. Be sure to click on a story title and try our new toolbar and short review form, as well as post a story, to see all the bells and whistles. (UPDATE: see our visual guide on how to use the new toolbar)

We're particularly excited about our new 'Smart Feeds' service, which surfaces news stories recommended by some of the most insightful thinkers online - as well as our most trusted sources and social news sites (see earlier blog post). Together, these 'smart feeds' harness the collective intelligence of thousands of professionals and citizens -- who extend the NewsTrust community to create a filtered list of quality news and opinion, round the clock. Check out today's feeds on our new site.

We hope that these new services and enhanced user experience will help you get more informed, and attract more people to join our cause in coming months.

NewsTrust's new home page, with news comparisons and top stories grid.

Thanks to our Team
Many thanks to our worldclass web development team: Adam Florin, David Fox, Subramanya Sastry and Caleb Waldorf created a much improved user interface and web platform in just a few months. Many thanks as well to Market Publique designers Jonathan Berger and Polly Barden for their invaluable contributions to the new look of the site.

This core team was supported by our dedicated staff members, who worked beyond the call of duty to make this launch possible: Kaizar Campwala, Derek Hawkins and Joey Baker -- as well asEzra Fox and Bryan Purse. They've all done wonders to improve the quality of our service -- and we're very lucky to have them on our team. Thank you for your insights, your leadership and your commitment to our cause!

Thanks to our Community
Our new site was designed with the help of our community, through a variety of surveys, emails and phone conferences this year. We're very grateful to all our members, advisors, partners and friends who took the time to propose new ideas, check our early designs, test our site and share their invaluable feedback.

We've already received great responses about this new release. Here are just a few examples of what folks are telling us:

I love the look of the site--instantly! Very good, strong first impression. Colors well chosen ... This new website seems to me to be a great leap forward. - Robert W. Fuller

I like every aspect of what I have found. The reviewing system is much less cluttered and probably will be better served with the present simplicity. - Jerry Firman

The site is much improved and getting to be downright fun to use. The vast range of sources really makes NewsTrust a must-check place for researching news stories. - Evelyn Messinger

I LOVE! The review toolbar/overlay!!! Great job, very well designed. - Joe Kraynik

Wow -- the new site looks great. It has taken leaps forward in overall design and content. It is definitely more user-friendly in a visual and organizational sense. Bravo! - Kristin Gorski

I love the new look!  Good use of enhanced width. So much easier to read. I appreciate your simplifying the upper nav bar. - Roger Macdonald

We're very grateful for all this wonderful feedback from our community, and are glad we were able to address so many of your recommendations this week. What didn't make it in this release will definitely be considered for the next release.

Please share your comments and suggestions at the bottom of this page - or email us. What do you like most? what do you like least? how can we improve this new site? We love bugs! If you find any technical issues, please report them here.

Thanks again to all our supporters for your generous contributions to our cause. Together, we've created a compelling example of how citizens and journalists can join forces online to filter quality information through social news networks.

We hope our new site will make it easier for all of us to find and share good journalism together -- and make more informed decisions as citizens.

Enjoy!

Fabrice Florin
Executive Director, NewsTrust

Sparring Opinions: Saving Lehman Brothers

This week marks the one year anniversary of the collapse of the financial giant Lehman Brothers, whose bankruptcy triggered panic in global markets last fall. In today's Sparring Opinions we're comparing two op-eds that offer different views on whether a taxpayer bailout of the firm would have helped stem the financial crisis.

In Forbes Magazine, NYU business professor Roy C. Smith argues unequivocally that the U.S. government should have saved Lehman Brothers:

"The Fed didn't have authority to take Lehman's assets as collateral, it said, and the Treasury strongly concurred, believing that markets had prepared themselves for Lehman's demise. But they hadn't. ... Letting Lehman go was a mistake. The event triggered a three-month market panic the likes of which no one living can remember, shutting down the interbank credit market and the commercial paper market and causing an instant run on money-market funds, and on the debt and stock prices of other large banks and investment banks."

Economist Joseph Stiglitz dismisses Smith's view as "sheer nonsense." In an op-ed in the Guardian, Stiglitz writes that while the U.S. government could have found a middle-ground between "abandonment or bailout," financial crisis was inevitable:

"Lehmans was not a cause but a consequence: a consequence of flawed lending practices, and of inadequate oversight by regulators. ... The Lehmans episode demonstrates that incompetence has a price. That there would be serious problems in our financial institutions was apparent since early 2007, with the bursting of the bubble. Self-deception led those who had allowed the bubble to develop, who had looked the other way as bad lending practices became routine, to think that the problems were niche or temporary."

Which story do you find most insightful? Make your voice heard -- add your review to these two opinions:

• Lehman's Lesson - Forbes

• For all Obama's talk of overhaul, the U.S. has failed to wind in Wall Street - The Guardian

-- Derek Hawkins

Sparring Opinions: Health Care Reform

With the summer recess over, President Obama will address a joint session of Congress tomorrow night, in which he'll restate his case for passing sweeping health care reform legislation this fall. In today's Sparring Opinions we're comparing two op-eds that examine what's to come in the health care debate and how Obama's speech will affect negotiations.

Rich Baehr, chief political correspondent for the American Thinker, laments in Pajamas Media that the president and the Democrats won't consider tort reform or the value of market forces in making insurance more affordable. He views some level of reform as misguided but inevitable:

"The president will try to calm the nation, drive away their fears (which he will claim are due mainly to conservative scare mongers), and provide some soothing music that all will be well or better if the nation just follows his lead. This is nonsense.  The odds of a big package passing at this point are, I think, slightly better than 50-50, given the Democrats’ control in Congress and the desire not to embarrass Obama with a big defeat.  The odds of passage for a more incremental approach (which will still not address any fundamental cost problem, but will not cost as much) are much higher."

Jonathan Cohn, The New Republic's health care blogger, agrees that reform legislation will likely pass, but focuses on how progressive the final bill will be. If the Democrats can't muster enough Republican support, approving reform will become a "high-risk-high-reward strategy":

"Since reconciliation means passing a bill with just fifty senators supporting it, the group of interests to satisfy becomes narrower--potentially allowing for a bolder, more progressive bill. That's the reward ... But the greatest risk with reconciliation is that the process produces a weak bill, an incomplete one, or, in the very worst case, a counter-productive one--not that it fails to produce any bill at all. The Democratic Party isn’t necessarily the bravest. (If it was, it’d have passed reform already.) But it’s also not the dumbest. Failing to pass a bill when they have the numbers would be politically suicidal, just like it was in the 1990s. Having committed themselves to passing legislation, they now must follow through."

Whose assessment do you find most insightful? Make your voice heard -- add your review to these to stories:

• Obama's health care speech a high-stakes political game - Pajamas Media

• Why reform survived August - The New Republic

Compare more stories on this important topic on our Health Care page.

-- Derek Hawkins

Sparring Opinions: Withdrawal from Afghanistan?

Conservative Washington Post columnist George Will shocked Washington media observers today with a column arguing for the United States to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. Will's prescription comes as the top U.S. commander in the country calls for an overhaul in military strategy and the Obama Administration begins a more than threefold increase of U.S. forces.

In this week's Sparring Opinions we're comparing George Will's column with an op-ed by liberal blogger and author Matthew Yglesias.

Will, an early proponent of the war in Afghanistan, wrote in the Washington Post that troop deaths, the inability to eradicate the Taliban and other issues necessitated a reversal of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan:

"forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters."

Yglesias, writing for the Daily Beast, argued the Obama Administration should "turn the policy trajectory around" in Afghanistan before the debate over whether to withdraw becomes too polarized. For now, he said, Obama is safe, but he risks "push[ing] liberals into the antiwar camp":

"Obama has ... a pretty open grace period in which complaints from the left about his Afghanistan policy will remain fairly marginal. In principle, the administration could take advantage of that opportunity to try to shift our approach to that country in a more sustainable direction—an essentially defensive mission aimed at ensuring the Afghan government is strong enough to avoid a Taliban takeover of the country, hoping that would prevent the re-emergence of the openly operating terrorist training camps of the pre-9/11 era."

Which of these opinions do you find most convincing? Do they both miss the mark? Weigh in on these two controversial pieces by adding your review:

• Time for the U.S. to get out of Afghanistan - Washington Post

• Bogging down in Kabul - Daily Beast

-- Derek Hawkins