This story is unavailable.

So you’re a journalist, then? Just asking, because I had been under the impression that a journalist’s stock in trade was his credibility on the skill of reporting facts in an unbiased manner, so that readers would be assured that what he writes is something other than a nonstop advertisement for his preferred partisan leanings.

Which leaves me wondering: what does being a journalist, have to do with whether you decide on your own initiative to give some politician a “chance”? That reads more like making yourself the story, than it does you reporting on one, which you haven’t done here, and by its tone I take it you don’t even consider this part of the job of being this “journalist” thing.

If you want anyone to take your writing seriously on anything about politics, or anything else for that matter, then how you personally feel about a story or what you mean to do or not do about it, ought to be the one thing that never, EVER enters your content. Once it does, you’re just another shouted voice in the partisan blogosphere, giving no one but those who wish to respond only to your opinions anything worth reading at all.

You want to call yourself a “journalist”? Then do journalism, not easy, choir-preaching feel-pieces that say nothing of value whatsoever, like this one whose very title begins with the last factor on any genuine journalist’s mind when reporting a story: “why.” The business of journalism is who, what, when, where and how. Do your professional aspirations a favor, and leave the “why” to history to decide.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.