This morning Politico's Robin Bravender spits up an astounding morsel of, uh, philosophical journalism? Here's the thrust, which, until the piece's very end, runs unmolested by any logical strafing or reportorial counteroffensive:
Barrett has leaned hard into the idea that Walker sparked a civil war in [Wisconsin] for purely partisan purposes. He has accused the governor of fudging job growth numbers to make himself look better, of hiding emails in a criminal probe and doing the bidding of out-of-state billionaires. He also sunk his teeth in during the two televised debates and is running ads hammering Walker on the criminal investigation surrounding his former aides....
But the smash-mouth attacks make it hard to imagine Barrett as a unifying figure, a point Republicans have seized on.
Let's imagine a piece from the vigorously analytical Ms. Bravender writing for Stars and Stripes, circa 1944:
"The Nazi's military slaughtering machine is contemptible. The Allies are a military slaughtering machine. Ergo, the Allies are contemptible."
I rather like the idea of a philosophical journalism, particularly since the art of political journalism has become so squalid. But, Ms. Bravender, please be advised of advances made in the syllogism since the ancient age of Aristotelian logic.