Documents released today titled “Letters from Abbottabad: Bin Ladin Sidelined?” include a January 2011 letter from Al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn to an unknown recipient. In the first part of the document Gadahn provides strategic advice regarding Al Qaeda’s media plans for the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
Of note, they don’t see any striking differences between the networks (channels) except when it comes to Fox News which they see as having fallen into the bottomless pit of hell:
As far as the American channel that could be used to deliver our messages, whether on the tenth anniversary or before or after, in my personal opinion there are no distinct differences between the channels from the standpoint of professionalism and neutrality. …
From the professional point of view, they are all on one level except (Fox News) channel which falls into the abyss as you know, and lacks neutrality too.
As for the neutrality of CNN in English, it seems to be in cooperation with the government more than the others (except Fox News of course). …
I used to think that MSNBC channel may be good and neutral a bit, but is has lately fired two of the most famous journalists –Keith Olberman and Octavia Nasser the Lebanese – because they released some statements that were open for argument (The Lebanese had praised a Shia Imam Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah after his death and called him “One of the marvels of Hizballah” it seems she is a Shia.)
CBS and ABC or okay in Al Qaeda’s book. 60 Minutes is a winner. But, of course, only God knows for sure if it’s really any good. And they think ABC likes them so they might like them back. Future Facebook friends? Idk?!
CBS channel … is like the other channels, but it has a famous program (60 Minutes) that has some popularity and a good reputation for its long broadcasting time. Only God knows the reality, as I am not really in a position to do so.
ABC channel is all right; actually it could be one of the best channels, as far as we are concerned. It is interested in al- Qa’ida issues, particularly the journalist Brian Ross, who is specialized in terrorism. The channel is still proud for its interview with the Shaykh. It also broadcasted excerpts from a speech of mine on the fourth anniversary, it also published most of that text on its site on the internet.
But back to reality, Al Qaeda knows whatever message they send to these networks, journos, and pundits will get twisted and distorted into some sort of crazy, psycho message about … wait …
In conclusion, we can say that there is no single channel that we could rely on for our messages. I may ignore them, and even the channel that broadcast them, probably it would distort them somehow. This is accomplished by bringing analysts and experts that would interpret its meaning in the way they want it to be. Or they may ignore the message and conduct a smearing of the individuals, to the end of the list of what you know about their cunning methods.
That being said, they still planned to send their message. Who’s the crazy muthaf***er now?
In general, and no matter what material we send, I suggest that we should distribute it to more than one channel, so that there will be healthy competition between the channels in broadcasting the material, so that no other channel takes the lead. It should be sent for example to ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN and maybe PBS and VOA. As for Fox News, let her die in her anger. That is if there was no agreement with a specific channel to publish a specific material, or conduct an interview, or the like.
Ha, ha, Fox News! No soup for you!