May 20, 20196 min read, 1261 words
Published: May 20, 2019 | 6 min read, 1261 words
CONGRATULATIONS TO Justin Amash! On Saturday, the representative from Michigan’s 3rd District became the first Republican member of Congress to call for impeachment, arguing that President Donald Trump’s actions and behavior, as detailed in special counsel Robert Mueller’s 448-pa...
Scores for this article.
Percentage of critic and public trust in this article.
Political Agenda16
critic score
public score
critic score
16 reviews
public score
108 reviews
critic score
2 reviews
public score
48 reviews
CRITIC REVIEWS
Great Context
June 3, 2019
This user only left a rating
June 3, 2019
Credible
May 23, 2019
While it definitely is pure opinion, Mehdi Hasan isn't hiding that this is his own personal viewpoint. I don't see why his credibility should be dinged.
Mehdi provides a bit of context this development with Republican Justin Amash then pivots to what really matters, which is the fact that the Democratic leadership in Congress is petrified by the idea of impeaching President Donald Trump.
He does a decent job running down the different issues the Democrats may create by avoiding impeachment proceedings.
If there is any weakness in Mehdi's op-ed, it is that he does not more directly address the credibility gap between what Democrats said about allegations related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation and what they say now when resisting calls for impeachment.
What impact may the Democrats face if voters believe they exaggerated the extent of Trump's criminal misconduct for political gain and that is why they aren't impeaching Trump?
May 23, 2019
PUBLIC REVIEWS
Pure Opinion
May 20, 2019
Mehdi Hasan’s Intercept article “REPUBLICAN ...It’s Time to Impeach Trump.” Normally, I value Hasan’s journalism, however, his article on impeachment reads more as a “call to arms” opinion piece than investigative reporting. Although his questions for the House leadership are valid, he dimenishes the importance of inquiry by providing NO ANSWERS (only his opinions supported by broad assumptions) and by using derogatory adjectives describing Trump (readers don’t need devisive points-of-view from reporters, we deserve both logos & mythos with supportive facts). Hasan’s dismissive term “Pelosi & Co.” Is reductive to the importance of her leadership title & appears to be used by Hasan to garner credence from any readers who may be Trump supporters. This article is not at the high standards normally applied by Hasan. I rate the article as a 2 on a scale of 5.
May 20, 2019
Pure Opinion
May 21, 2019
Hasan simply cited Twitter with minimal other sources. Even if the conclusion is sound, it still rubs off as a pure opinion piece.
May 21, 2019
Valentina Garcia
446 reviews
Pure Opinion
May 21, 2019
I don't find re-hashes of Twitter fights particularly interesting or useful. I don't disagree with Hasan, but I don't think I really need this to be news I read either.
May 21, 2019
Pure Opinion
May 22, 2019
There's nothing wrong with opinion pieces, so long as they're not passed off as actual reporting. I suppose that's part of what Credder is all about. This article is an opinion piece. What does Credder wish to see done with opinion pieces? Certainly we don't need to debate politics in the comment sections of the website. And we can't take umbrage with people having different opinions. So I'm a but uncertain as to how Credder expects people to rate an opinion piece that isn't trying to pass itself off as actual news reporting.
May 22, 2019
Pure Opinion
May 21, 2019
Making people agree with you based on bias is what we are fighting to get rid of. Reporters need to report on facts when talking politics, not on their opinions lest opinion become fact in the mind of the reader. This is an across the board issue which has landed us in the current media/journalism climate we are in.
May 21, 2019
Political Agenda
May 23, 2019
An example of opinion journalism. Actually a pretty good summarizing of the current media narrative on Trump. Long on personal animus and short on specifics on collusion, obstruction of justice, treason and coverup. There’s nothing in the piece that the bygone ink-stained wretches of journalism would recognize as news.
May 23, 2019
Political Agenda
May 21, 2019
This is not fact based reporting, it reads like an OP ED. News should not be biased, it should present facts, data, and relevant information (all of it, by the way, not cherry picked data), and allow the user to form their own opinion. It should not convey to a user how they should think/feel about a subject.
May 21, 2019
Pure Opinion
May 22, 2019
While technically true, this piece only really shows a statement from Twitter. It is highly sensationalized and written in a way that gives the reader an emotional charge instead of just informing the reader of an objective truth.
May 22, 2019
Pure Opinion
May 21, 2019
Only cites Twitter. Uses invective liberally. Not real journalism.
May 21, 2019
Pure Opinion
May 21, 2019
While it’s reasonable to note that Amash has disagreed with his colleagues in the GOP before, the congratulatory tone of the article, and the admonishment of Democrats as a whole for failing unilaterally to reach Amash’s position is intellectually dishonest.
May 21, 2019
Pure Opinion
May 27, 2019
This is an opinion piece and clearly a subject that Mehdi Hasan feels strongly about. He’s clear and concise on what he’s arguing and passionate in his delivery. Readers should know that he has an agenda here, but what opinion piece doesn’t? It’s credible and his points are valid. All Hasan is at risk doing here is preaching to the choir.
May 27, 2019
Political Agenda
May 24, 2019
The bias is obvious from the title.
May 24, 2019
Well Sourced
May 31, 2019
This user only left a rating
May 31, 2019
Credible
May 22, 2019
This user only left a rating
May 22, 2019
Credible
May 22, 2019
This user only left a rating
May 22, 2019
Credible
May 23, 2019
This user only left a rating
May 23, 2019
Political Agenda
May 23, 2019
This user only left a rating
May 23, 2019
Political Agenda
May 30, 2019
Author shows strong political bias in this very non-journalistic, propaganda opinion piece.
May 30, 2019
Political Agenda
May 30, 2019
This user only left a rating
May 30, 2019
Misused Term
May 22, 2019
This user only left a rating
May 22, 2019
Speculation
May 22, 2019
This user only left a rating
May 22, 2019
Pure Opinion
May 22, 2019
This user only left a rating
May 22, 2019
Political Agenda
May 22, 2019
Article is biased, but credible. I'd give this article 100% Trust AND biased, if that was an option.
Would like to flag this "Editorial masquerading as News" piece.
I don't see any factual errors, just a strong bias to impeach, which is an obvious political bias.
May 22, 2019
Credible
May 30, 2019
The biggest issue I see with this article is that it’s not more clearly labeled as opinion. If you look at the page on The Intercept called Voices, which says it’s for perspectives on news by journalists (https://theintercept.com/voices/), you’ll see the article there. Reading the piece, it’s pretty clear to me that it is opinion. It would be interesting if someone could confirm this with the author or the publication. Hopefully, that’s something Credder can help with. I’ll work from the assumption that this was designed to be opinion. I think it’s reasonable. The author cites sources to support claims about Democratic sentiment on impeachment and on quotes from other sources. He brings up points worth considering, even if you don’t agree with them.
May 30, 2019
Pure Opinion
June 1, 2019
Biased opinion reporting .
June 1, 2019