Wtiness Michelle Boorstein's WaPo profile of Pam Geller and her blogging partner Robert Spencer. Gellar's anti-Islam bigotry and reality-bending insanity (she famously accused the President of being Malcolm X's love child) should make her a laughing stock on any normal person's radar, but Boorstein takes the "Earth is flat, views differ" approach on Gellar's credibility.
While some have dismissed them as bigoted attention-seekers, their attacks on the proposed Islamic center in Lower Manhattan have gained currency in recent weeks among some Republican leaders. And their influence appears to be growing.
At no point in the article does Boorstein hint that this may be a problem. Perhaps it has something to do with this:
Through her blog, Atlas Shrugs, television interviews and appearances at political rallies, Geller has become one of the chief organizers of opposition to the so-called Ground Zero mosque as well as efforts to build other Muslim prayer centers across the country.
Here's what I want to know: the only people who are able to give Pam Gellar credibility in the world of journalism are...actual journalists. Calling her out as a bigot of course would impugn everyone who's had her on their show (and everyone in GOP circles in Washington) who consider her to be legitimate...and Boorstein apparently doesn't have the desire to seer her career vanish in a puff of smoke.
Of course, Pam Gellar is now openly attacking Boorstein and the Washington Post anyway:
And she rants on. No racist will ever tolerate being called a racist, no bigot will ever tolerate being called a bigot. Even when boorstein is giving her cover, Gellar berates her as stupid and dangerous, saying that the article "incites violence" against anyone "brave" enough to criticize Islam.She has used this incendiary language, i.e., "anti-Muslim," before (here). She is not only stupid, but dangerous. I am not anti-Muslim. This is a slanderous lie. I love people. All people. Anyone who knows my work, knows me. I am against the ideology that inspires jihad. I am against the sharia. I am against gender apartheid, misogyny, etc.The reckless and malicious "reportage" of this "religion" reporter is bordering on criminality. Having interviewed with Boorstein at length, her silly propaganda piece reflects none of the interview I conducted with her. In my conversation with her, she showed herself to be woefully ignorant on her niche, the religion beat. I found it astounding that a "religion" reporter from the venerable (ahem) Washington Post knew little to nothing of her subject matter. She knew nothing of the sharia, apostasy, the threat doctrine, gender apartheid, abrogation...........
The whole thing is farcical. Steve M. wraps it up:
Indeed. Bloggers would joke that the GOP was taking Islam policy from Pam Geller. Nobody's laughing now, because that is now the literal truth.
See, to the mainstream press, it doesn't matter all that much what she says. What matters is that she's worked it. She's hustled to try to become a media star. To them, she isn't a hatemonger freak -- she's a hell of a self-promoter. They respect that. She's doing what a lot of journalists are trying to do. They all have a novel in the desk dream, or dreams of being a bestselling nonfiction writer like Jon Meacham or Walter Isaacson. So they probably get her.
And now she has a president and an entire political party on the ropes. So she'll probably get more respect. She could be on the covers of Time and Newsweek soon.
The Republican party has declared war on Muslims in America. You know, Muslims like Obama.
No comments:
Post a Comment