Justin Elliot thinks The New York Times profile of Pam Geller went far too easy on her:
It's obvious to anyone who reads Geller's blog that she is, by the dictionary definition, a bigot. She has, for example, fantasized about Israel responding to Iranian attack by nuking the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia. She has bought bus ads in several cities encouraging people to leave Islam. She believes the Dome of the Rock, an important Islamic holy site, "has got to go." She called for a boycott of Campbell's over the company's introduction of a Halal line of foods.
In the Times' telling, all of this makes Geller a "provocateur" and a "firebrand." Again, this is accurate, but missing the point.
I thought the Times profile was a pretty good example of when objectivity-based journalism allows the subject to hang themselves with their own quotes and associations ("stealth Jihad is the knife slicing the salami of freedom" -- Islamophobia and castration anxiety in one neat package). I think most people reading that story would conclude that she's not someone American political leaders should be listening to. But I understand Elliot's frustration -- let's face it, the Times went harder on M.I.A. than they did on Geller.
