Slate Tells Us To Ignore...Slate

James Taranto, in his daily "Best of the Web" column for the WSJ, often has a feature entitled "Two papers in one!", in which he highlights two excerpts from the same media outlet making assertive statements that contradict each other.

Can I offer my own version?  From The Slatest, an email roundup I get daily from Slate (yes, I know, but - if you don't know the arguments of your enemies, you cannot effectively combat them), they bring us reaction to the announcement that Scott Brown will not run for John Kerry's now-vacant Senate seat in Massachusetts:


Instant Analysis I: Politico: "It’s a serious, early recruiting failure for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and it makes the already uphill climb to a majority that much steeper for the GOP. They need six seats, and many party strategists privately counted on Massachusetts as one of them. ... [A] Republican source said that Brown really is considering a 2014 gubernatorial campaign, and that it is not just a matter of speculation. 'Scott Brown is looking at the governor’s race,' the source said." Washington Post: Four Reasons Brown May Run For Governor


Instant Analysis II: Weigel:  Do you remember those months Democrats spent panicking that Scott Brown would rise again if John Kerry's Senate seat opened up? The panic that started roughly three weeks before Brown even lost his old seat to Sen. Elizabeth Warren? All for naught. ... Endless, half-informed column inches were written about how risky it was to nominate John Kerry to run the State Department, because surely the guy who just got ethered by an Oklahoma-born law professor was going to swoop in and save his seat for Republicans. This is your daily reminder to ignore most political reporting that's based on but-what-ifs."



So Slate tells us to ignore Slate  Or it tells us to ignore Politico, which is even better.

How about we do both?