Schmidt has her job writing crappy blogs and passing them off as “journalism” at The Washington Post, and Sarsour is another extreme activist provocateur. It’s a paying gig these days no matter how you market it. Whether it’s Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Colter, Tucker Carlson, Trevor Noah, Jon Stewart (just landed an ESPN gig), or Linda Sarsour, it doesn’t matter. They’ve all got their own angles, and Sarsour’s is a bogus stereotype of what “Middle Eastern Female Empowerment” should look like. The checks are coming. It’s a golden age for journalists and provocateurs these days, thanks to the internet.
This article linked here https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/07/07/muslim-activist-linda-sarsours-reference-to-jihad-draws-conservative-wrath/?utm_term=.b3d577f2608a by Washington Post’s Samantha Schmidt is a textbook case of left-wing damage control. It’s bad enough that Schmidt is giving publicity to an obvious huckster like Linda Sarsour, which strikes me as something that would require a significant down payment. Shame on Schmidt for that alone. With Sarsour, there is genuinely no story. She doesn’t wield enough influence like a Milo Yiannopoulos or even a Rachel Maddow or a Sarah Palin. Sarsour is genuinely believed to be at the bottom of the barrel by her contemporaries. She hasn’t done any mainstream events of consequence, and Hollywood hasn’t decided that she’s worth booking on the late night talk show circuit. There is no story, she is genuinely fake news.
Because Sarsour is so low on the totem pole, I really can’t say I’m all that familiar with her stances on anything. I know how political propaganda works, but trying to mass-market “Middle Eastern Feminism” activism is going to require a stronger spokesperson that Sarsour to sell it large-scale. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but Sarsour isn’t the person for the job.
Today, Sarsour made some remark about “jihad” against President Trump and non-assimilators. It’s not an off-the-cuff remark, these things are done deliberately. The orator’s every word is chosen for a purpose. She is obviously trying to steal some limelight, get some kind of retort-tweet from The President, some airtime on the networks, and get paid. It’s a shameless publicity grab, and the Washington Post has the nerve to run the damage control piece attempting to explain why “jihad” isn’t a violent term, and Sarsour anointed with the divine right to claim victimhood status of right-wing press and bigots. Shame on Schmidt for publishing such an ugly piece.
The real story is finding out why Sarsour believes that threatening jihad will take her career to the next level. This is America, you can sell your propaganda just about any way you wish. Here’s a follow-up: what’s next for the Sarsour brand? Calling for jihad is a difficult act to top. The only thing Sarsour could conceivably do to top calling for jihad is to actually participate in jihad, and it would have to be a real showstopper and not some vague “spiritual jihad”. Spiritual jihad won’t sell as well violent jihad now. Stephen Colbert and Rachel Maddow and Tucker Carlson won’t book her unless she actually takes it to the next level. That is the only story that should be written about Linda Sarsour. Samantha Schmidt instead writes a dumb blog about how the “jihad” is a good thing. Journalism Dies In Ignorance at The Washington Post.
Someone like Sarsour is damaging to the Democratic Party. It’s no wonder her endorsement isn’t sought after by any major candidates (another indicator of her lack of influence). You can practically already here the GOP ads writing themselves and being beamed directly into your brain: “Senator so-and-so endorsed by jihadist Linda Sarsour…”. No reasonable Democrat wants to step into that minefield, so they just ignore her, pretend she doesn’t exist. Her endorsement is suicide and cancer rolled into one.
With Linda Sarsour, there is no story. There will never be one. Some things are just impossible to market.