Alito's Comment

January 28, 2010:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/01/commentary-alito-vs-obama-whos-right/

Though this article dates back a few weeks, I thought it was a great example of new media coverage of the Supreme Court; it includes a link to a youtube video and strays from the normal layout of the more traditional media. The article discusses Supreme Court Justice Alito's shake of the head and "that's not true" comment at Obama's State of the Union address. The reaction was caught on camera, and though you can not hear his remark, his words as they are formed by his lips are very clear.
The article is divided into two sections: an analysis of the incident and a commentary about it. This structure is not typical of traditional media, and allows the readers to be more informed as to where they might watch out for the author's spin.
In the analysis section the article discusses the incident and includes a link to the video so that readers could watch for themselves. Next, it discusses the issues that "the exchange" raises about campaign finance and separation of governmental powers. I think this freedom to branch out from the issue and discuss the deeper meaning is something that traditional media cannot always offer.
In the commentary section, the article offers a critical point of view about the incident, without really taking a side. Though it raises past instances in which Alito voiced his disagreements, it states what both critics and supporters are saying.
With regards to how thoroughly this article informs the reader I will say: after reading the article I felt informed not only about the incident with Alito, but also about the campaign finance issues that Obama was reacting to. A link was provided with an example the article offered, so I felt that I could really get to know about all the issues that the article touched on. The more information the reader is provided with, especially when it comes through other sites, the more able he or she is to see the larger picture and to spot any spin or bias the article's author might have added.