The coverage of the shootings in Texas has belatedly started to make an issue of Pamela Geller’s extremism. Last night she was derided on MSNBC as a provocateur who is seeking a violent response. Today’s New York Times has a long piece about Geller that unfortunately sets her up as a bold truthteller at the start: “Though hailed by her supporters as a patriot and condemned by her critics as a bigot, Ms. Geller, everyone seems to agree, has never had trouble speaking her mind.” But the profile at least does review some of Geller’s highlights of racism.
Yet the piece, by Alan Feuer, is signally lacking in one respect; there are no Muslims in it.
Shouldn’t he have talked to the people who are being hated and ask for their opinion? He says Geller played a role in winning the resignation of Debbie Almontaser from the Kahlil Gibran Academy in Brooklyn. OK; here’s a woman who was victimized by Geller. Shouldn’t the Times call her and ask her about that? She’s a wonderful, articulate person, and not hard to find in New York.
He also reports that Geller has advocated for the removal of the Dome of the Rock from the Temple Mount. Shouldn’t he ask what Muslims have to say about that idea? How does that feel to them? Again, not a single Muslim person is asked about the impact of these insults.
From the simple standpoint of Journalism 101, it’s obvious why you should consult Muslims. If you’re writing a profile of a racist, you should gather the comments from the victims of the racism.
But there’s another reason why the views of some Muslims should be sought. We non-Muslims are raised in different cultural traditions, with different taboos and red lines. Therefore we understandably have a problem fully grasping the feelings of outrage and pain that Muslims feel, for instance, at cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. We need to hear more Muslim voices. The implication in the Western press is often that Muslims’ sensitivities are immature, that Islam needs a Reformation, they should catch up to us in tolerance. That view is woefully simplistic, but even if it had merit, we still need to find out what people actually feel.
There is, of course, no excuse for violently attacking the Geller gathering. Free speech is sacrosanct. But let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s say that a group of neo-Nazis hosted a conference in Brooklyn at which an exhibit of Nazi cartoons from the Hitler era was on display. Isn’t it possible — possible — that a couple of former Jewish Defense League extremists would attack the gathering with weapons? Or let’s say a group of militant atheists hosted a conference in Norman, Oklahoma, at which Bibles were burnt and crucifixes desecrated. Isn’t it possible — possible — that a couple of far right gun nuts would open fire on the gathering?
I’m just saying, maybe these are the kind of visceral feelings that Jews and Christians can relate to that Muslims seem to experience at Pamela Geller’s racism. The Times made not even a minimal effort to convey as much.
the problem is the opposite. it seems she can’t stop ‘speaking her mind’, even when speaking her mind means provoking violence and supporting racism. thank you NYT for the mindless platitudes implying a commitment to honesty, when she is anything but honest.
I’m guilty of this trap as well, but we don’t need ‘a thought experiment’. Christians and Jews have their own history of committing terrorism in this country.
Compare that to this NYT article on Trevor Noah. Abe Foxman comments get three paragraphs, while Noah’s only response given is a tweet.
Is is not obvious that the Pam Geller contest was set up to create an ISIS attack on American soil? Who funded the $10,000 prize? And who funded Geller’s transit ad campaign in NYC, which was way more expensive?
Is it not obvious this attack benefits the same people who fund the suppression of free speech about Israel? Is it not obvious that suppressing free speech about Israel and demonizing Islam are two sides of the same coin, done mainly by the same people?
Is it not clear the choice of Texas as the venue for this incident is intelligently strategic? It has a large population of Christian bigots to be stirred up, and Ted Cruz, the Senator from Goldman Sachs to do the stirring.
Is is not increasingly clear there is a mafia-like organization with vast financial resources manipulating America’s politicians and press?
It seems the LA Times article is more critical of this bigot, and it has statements from Muslims too. Imagine a woman with no academic credentials spewing utter BS about a subject she knows nothing about. Those who listen to her diatribe obviously do not care about that.
“A onetime journalist, Geller worked for the Daily News in New York and served as associate publisher of the New York Observer before turning full time to what critics consider her campaign of Islamaphobia.
She has no academic credentials as an expert in Islam or jihad. But through her blog, Atlas Shrugs, and her willingness to espouse harsh views of Islam, Geller has gained a following that includes John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who spoke via video link in support of her at the protest on the ninth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.
One of Geller’s biggest fans is Geert Wilders, a far-right Dutch member of parliament best known for his criticism of Islam.
“Pamela is an extraordinary woman. I only have a few heroes, but Pamela certainly is one of them,” Wilders said during a speech at the Garland, Texas, event Sunday.
“Islam and freedom are totally incompatible,” Wilders added.
Geller says she is not anti-Muslim, only anti-jihad and anti-sharia law.
Critics, notably the Southern Poverty Law Center, say she is a hate-monger. The Alabama-based center describes her as “the anti-Muslim movement’s most visible and flamboyant figurehead.”
Heidi Beirich, intelligence project director at the center, said she expected Geller to try to harness sympathy by comparing her group to the French satirical publication Charlie Hebdo, which was attacked in January after publishing cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.
But Beirich said there was no comparison. “Charlie Hebdo was an equal opportunity mocker,” Beirich said of the Paris magazine, which was to be honored in New York on Tuesday by the PEN American Center literary group. “All she does is bash Muslims. That’s it.”
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-geller-profile-20150504-story.html#page=1
JAMES NORTH- “Yet the piece, by Alan Feuer, is signally lacking in one respect; there are no Muslims in it.”
Why would you expect to find balance in media propaganda? Geller is but an extreme example of the “clash of civilizations” meme being pushed by our doctrinal system. If one were to objectively look at the past five hundred years, it would be fairly obvious that the “Christian” nations of Europe have far and away been the most violent and bloody. The media, however, isn’t interested in that. Ever since WWII, the US has waged non-stop war against the entire Third World in order to achieve strategic objectives, a reality the media misrepresents in order to fulfill its propaganda function. The media is an integral part of empire and is a major part of the problem. Why continue with the pretense that this example of yours represents some sort of deviation from the norm?