Times on Geller and Coulter
(Update: Geller replies
to the Times.)
The New York Times has a long profile—or rather a hit job—on Pamela Geller, focusing on her role in sparking the debate over the Ground Zero mosque. I mostly skimmed it rather than reading it, as most of it is an expression of liberal prejudice and outright lies rather an attempt to describe things, and this makes it unreadable. I myself have serious problems with Geller (for example, the way she along with Robert Spencer immediately accepted the truth of a liberal hit job on an anti-Ground Zero mosque rally in August with which she and Spencer weren’t involved). But is she crazy, is she extreme, is she a spreader of hatred of Muslims? No. But that’s the way the article paints her.
(And please note: the simple thing I just did for Geller, saying that a liberal hit job on her was a hit job, is something that she herself will never do for any Islam critic who is not within her personal circle, as shown by her and Spencer’s response to the attack on the August rally.)
Also, the October 8 Times has an article on Ann Coulter, focusing on her speech to the homosexual Republican group GOProud at an event called Homocon. Naturally, the Times describes Coulter as “far right.” It also refers to her as an “right-wing, evangelical Christian.” What is the basis for that? Coulter in the last year or two has occasionally referred to herself as a Christian, which I found odd, as there’s nothing about her persona, nothing about her message, that is Christian, let alone evangelical. It becomes even more absurd to call her a right-wing evangelical Christian when she’s supporting a homosexual organization that is campaigning for homosexual “marriage.” We inhabit an unreal world of discourse, in which extreme left-liberalism defines normality, and anything one inch to the right of extreme left-liberalism is the “right,” anything two inches to the right of extreme left-liberalism is the “far right.”
- end of initial entry -
Tim W. writes:
We inhabit an unreal world of discourse, in which extreme left-liberalism defines normality, and anything one inch to the right of extreme left-liberalism is the right, and anything two inches to the right of extreme left-liberalism is the far right.
That is exactly right. For years, Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina was routinely described as ultra-conservative, arch-conservative, and far right in the mainstream media. But senators who were (and still are) as far to the left as Helms was to the right are never defined in superlatives. One never sees a mainstream media outlet refer to the “ultra-liberal Barbara Boxer.” One never reads a New York Times profile of “far left Senator Richard Durbin.” Barack Obama was rated the most liberal member of the Senate during his tenure and the press wouldn’t even call him simply a liberal, let alone refer to him as “far left” or “ultra-liberal.”
The media see things from an egocentric point of view. They’re on the left, in many cases the far left, so no leftist politician or movement is very far from where they sit. Go a bit to the right and you’re heading out into uncharted territory.
Some years ago, there were competing abortion rallies in Washington. The Washington Post promoted the pro-abortion rally for days, and gave it lavish front page coverage when it occurred. The pro-life rally, even though larger, got only a small reference in the paper’s local news section. When accused of bias, the editors “explained” that they didn’t think the pro-life rally was important. No one on their staff had been interested in it, whereas the whole building had been abuzz with excitement over the feminist rally, and many of their staff had asked for the day off to participate in the event. So it wasn’t bias, they insisted, it was just that none of their employees agreed with the pro-life position, as if that itself wasn’t proof of their bias.
Sophia A. writes:
I have only just begun to read this article and may have more thoughts later, but the very beginning contains this striking sentence:
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 10, 2010 08:18 AM | Send
“Operating largely outside traditional Washington power centers—and, for better or worse, without traditional academic, public-policy or journalism credentials—”
Oh, the insubordination! Pamela Geller operates without “traditional journalistic credentials.” I could go on and on about what a meaningless thing “journalistic credentials” are—but I will spare you as I think you, I, and your readers are on the same page.
At some point in the last year or two, I came to the following conclusion, which I think is probably obvious to you and your readers, but which bears repeating:
The major media outlets are hopeless. The more “prestigious” the outlet, the worse they are. There may be a nice guy or two among them, but the entire stew is polluted. Don’t even bother expecting anything decent from them. Then when they are fair you can be pleasantly surprised.