[caww]

I beg to differ with you as Paul Bedard often has excellent articles in the Washington Examiner. I'm far more interested in the trustworthiness 'of the authors' who write than what might be considered an otherwise popular site to some. As to any actual journalism today, let alone investigative journalism, one is surely hard pressed to find even in the Wall Street Journal. However, since I don't care to fork over $$$ to Wall Street J. I am certainly grateful for the news sites reporting otherwise.

Additionally....it is not uncommon one needs to look further for ‘details’ about an article written of which they have interest in further details...Freepers often come together with their ‘findings’ when there's sufficient interest.

I might suggest you go to the VA site itself to discover all 15 which were listed initially. I am delighted to see our Presidents efforts to take care of the facilities for our vets is getting results. Which is the point of placing this thread......... Happy fishing ;)

[Wuli]

Sorry. The editorial slant of the Washington Examiner is no excuse for what I consider sloppy journalism by any source.

At least the WSJ article named the five locations where the VA had improved, which was to me minimum detail needed in article titled: “5 poorly performing VA hospitals ready to graduate from high-risk list”.

The VERY FIRST journalistic question is - where are they??