I am examining a feature story from the New York Times titled, "Sierra Leone's health care system becomes a cautionary tale for donors." Given the title, I thought the story had potential to go one of two ways. It could contain personal biases and rely on stereotypes about the African people to tell the news story, or be an enlightening piece for the paper's audience. This article turned out to be the latter, and I found it to be an interesting report and basically a public service announcement. The story focuses on the corruption among the nation's healthcare industry professionals, and that those who donate money to aid the people of Sierra Leone are funding this corruption. It objectively describes the offenders, who range from African doctors to European administrators. The reporter's sources include The British Government, Sierra Leone's anti-corruption agency, World Bank Representative to the United States Francis Ato Brown, the Vaccine Alliance's internal review, the head of the Anti-Corruption Commission Joseph F. Kamara, former Anti-Corruption Commissioner Abdul Tejan-Cole, and the country's top doctor and chief medical officer Dr. Kizito Daoh. I believe these sources represent the spectrum of those represented in the story, which is fair to both the accusers and the accused.