For an example of bad journalism, check out this passage from the page one article by Amy Chozick in Sunday's Times about Hillary Clinton's economic policy:
Many of the advocates who knew Mrs. Clinton as a champion for the poor and working-class women felt betrayed in 1996 when, as first lady, she supported Mr. Clinton's overhaul of the welfare system, which gave states more power to remove people from welfare rolls and pledged to cut federal spending on assistance for the poor by nearly $55 billion over six years. She was more skeptical about the North American Free Trade Agreement, which Mr. Clinton signed into law in 1993 and which has also been accused of hurting American workers.
This is bad journalism for at least two reasons. First, there are no specifics about how Mrs. Clinton was "more skeptical" of Nafta than she was of welfare reform. What evidence is there of her skepticism? Did she privately oppose it? Publicly oppose it? Let it be known publicly after it passed that she privately opposed it? In her time as a senator and as Secretary of State, did she ever call for amending it or abrogating it? The Times doesn't say. (For some background, this New York Sun editorial, this New York Sun news article, and this ABC News blog item may be helpful.)
The second reason it is bad journalism is that the claim that Nafta "has also been accused of hurting American workers" is passed along without any skepticism or fact-checking or balance or scrutiny by the Times. Does the accusation have any merit? The Times seems not to care. Plenty of people would say that on a net basis, Nafta helped American workers by saving them money as consumers, improving their access to products made at lower cost in Mexico and Canada and lowering the tariffs on those imported items. Others would point out that the trade deal helped some American manufacturing and agricultural workers by opening Canadian and Mexican markets to American exports.