The New Republic skips the whole fair and balanced thing

I almost wish Justice David Souter weren't retiring, that way we wouldn't have the suffer through the months-long media-driven 'debate' about his replacement; a SCOTUS debate that in recent years has become increasingly suspect thanks in no small part, I think, to the Beltway press.

Matthew Yglesias highlights an early entry in that sweepstakes, courtesy of Jeffrey Rosen at TNR. The piece argues that Sonia Sotomayor, thought to be a possible Souter replacement, might be all wrong for the job. It's this concession from Rosen that set off some alarms:  

I haven’t read enough of Sotomayor’s opinions to have a confident sense of them, nor have I talked to enough of Sotomayor’s detractors and supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths.

Isn't it probably a good idea, journalism-wise, to do that before publishing a take-down piece that's filled with anonymous quotes and is headlined, "The Case Against Sotomayor"?