I will never get over how "reporting" seems to amount to publishing a bunch of quotes by people without assessing their credibility. Why give Wisconsin Republicans, noted bad actors, a free mouthpiece in this article at all, let alone without context for whether their comments about "economic uncertainty" under the Dem governor hold any water?
Alternatively, the reporter is giving those Republicans rope to hang themselves. It all depends on how many people in the audience are capable of recognizing the bullsh*t for what it is.
And don't forget, that number might be small today but could grow much larger down the road. One aspect of reporting is creating a record. Without a record there can be no accountability. One function of a newspaper article is to provide context for quotations, and in particular a timestamp.
It’s a tenet of responsible journalism to allow those involved in a story to comment on it. Which is why mainstream news stories so often contain a line about “XY did not respond to a request for comments” or similar.
While journalists do choose who to talk to when seeking, for example, experts in a certainty j field of science, politicians are regarded more as the holder of their office, and not evaluated individually.
When they are lying or incompetent, the reader needs to be able to see so for themselves using the reported facts, I. e. “Show, don’t tell”. Anything else would rightfully be accused of editorializing.
And I expect that the report would include those facts alongside the quote so I could make that decision. This does not. Readers are not going to go on their own investigation.
