Yesterday afternoon, we gave you a taste of the media falling all over themselves to defend Linda Sarsour’s endorsement of “jihad” in a speech denouncing Donald Trump, a trend that’s continued into today.
Mind if we add a heavy hitter to the pile?
Muslim activist Linda Sarsour’s reference to "jihad" draws conservative wrath https://t.co/hCsRSZ30N0
— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) July 7, 2017
“Conservative wrath.” Because it’s conservatives’ fault that Sarsour, a well-known defender of sharia law and terrorist apologist, specifically referred to “jihad” in her speech. How dare conservatives’ associate jihad with violence?! The nerve!
Rothman's Law: The story isn't the story; the conservative reaction to the story is the story. pic.twitter.com/gVx4THrNrH
— Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) July 7, 2017
"Republicans pounce" is as standard as Who, What, When, Where.
— OneNewsNow (@onenewsnowcom) July 7, 2017
"Conservatives in uproar over plane crashes in NYC, DC and PA"
— JB (@JeffiBelcher) July 7, 2017
Not conservative. Ppl with common sense.
— JL31🇺🇸 (@2000heynow) July 7, 2017
It ought to draw the wrath of everyone with love of country.
— Fabrizio (@Fabrizio_tl) July 7, 2017
Would it kill the mainstream media to acknowledge Sarsour’s history for once? Would it kill them to concede that someone who regularly defends radical Islam might not have innocent intentions when she mentions jihad? And would it kill them to not twist themselves into knots to paint conservatives as the bad guys?
Incredible how some in the media pretend "jihad" doesn't have a recent history and context involving violence: https://t.co/29sLGqwaML
— John Sexton (@verumserum) July 7, 2017
Even more incredible is how Dems think defending this is a winning strategy. "Vote Dem 2018: Jihad doesn't mean what you think it means!"
— Sam (@Sam_5thEstate) July 7, 2017
Oh, hey, here comes the HuffPost:
— HuffPost Politics (@HuffPostPol) July 7, 2017
Like clockwork. https://t.co/ujpUxgMvbu
— BT (@back_ttys) July 7, 2017