This is an opinion column - the equivalent of talking-head punditry on television. Sarah Posner is essentially saying that Warren is not a good choice for the inaugural invocation because he doesn't believe what she believes - what she believes all progressives believe. So what? Obama is the President of the United States, not just his progressive supporters. Why shouldn't he choose someone to give the invocation that in all likelihood didn't vote for him? This piece takes political sides by saying that Warren's beliefs are wrong because Posner disagrees with them. Isn't that a definition of a personal attack? A more journalistically sound approach would be to examine why Warren's beliefs are troubling. Posner assumes her readers all agree with her. In that case, why bother to write the piece at all? Better to suggest some alternatives, for example, Posner cites one reason that Warren doesn't believe in evolution is because homosexuality would be an evolutionary dead end resulting in the extinction of human beings. The point has some logic behind it, but Posner chooses merely to present this quote and assume that readers will infer Warren's stupidity for adhering to such a belief. She is attacking his beliefs rather than his logic. Again, this seems to be a personal attack rather than good journalism. Instead, she could have suggested another interpretation of homosexuality as an evolutionary trait, one that helps protect the planet from overpopulation. Why is this piece bad journalism? It presents facts only in order to support the prejudices of the readers.