A new entry for the Times style guide! They’ll list it somewhere between “fake but accurate” and “ultra-ultraconservative”:
Arab news reports highlighted the fact that Mr. Ellison would probably take the oath of office on the Koran, something which also upset Muslim-bashers in the blogosphere. Some suggested it meant he would pledge allegiance to Islamic law rather than to upholding the Constitution.
Does the article so much as intimate why some of those “Muslim-bashers” might object to Keith Ellison? Is the word “CAIR” breathed even once? No, of course not. If there’s good reason to criticize then it’s not “bashing,” and that fouls up the narrative.
Incidentally, CJ predicted on Election Day that they’d be celebrating his victory in Gaza. Close enough:
Mr. Ellison’s victory was widely noted in the larger Muslim world. The day after the election, it was the third headline mentioned on Al Jazeera, the most popular satellite news channel in the Middle East, right after a report that 18 Palestinian civilians had been killed by Israeli artillery in the Gaza Strip and a report on the overall Democratic sweep in the elections.
The news garnered a rich variety of comments from Arab readers on the Web site of Al Arabiya, a satellite news channel based in Dubai. “God willing in the next election, half of Congress will be from the rational Muslims,” wrote one reader, while another said, “May God make this the beginning of victory for Muslims on the very ground of the despots.”
Exit question: is the Times’s criticism of Bush “America-bashing” or “conservative-bashing”?