Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Even Bin Laden didn't think Fox was fair and balanced

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Even Bin Laden didn't think Fox was fair and balanced

    ...
    Al-Qaida letter about Fox News: ‘Let her die in her anger’
    By Dylan Stableford | The Cutline – 57 mins ago

    Bin Laden (AP/File)

    In a letter outlining al-Qaida's media strategy ahead of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, the terror group's top spokesman expressed disdain for Fox News.

    "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," al-Qaida spokesman Adam Gadahn wrote in the January 2011 letter. The paper was one of a selection of more than 6,000 pages of documents seized during the May 1, 2011, raid that killed Osama bin Laden, which West Point's Combating Terrorism Center released on Thursday.

    Writing to an unknown recipient, Gadahn, an American, gives a detailed critique of U.S. media outlets, and brainstorms about where al-Qaida might focus its press efforts:

    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). Its Arabic version brings good and detailed reports about al-Sahab releases, with a lot of quotations from the original text. That means they copy directly from the releases or its gist. It is not like what other channels and sites do, copying from news agencies like Reuters, AP and others.

    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.

    CBS channel was mentioned by the Shaykh, I see that it 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.

    "In conclusion," Gadahn wrote, "we can say that there is no single channel that we could rely on for our messages. [They] 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.

    He added: "As for Fox News, let her die in her anger."

    As was previously reported, the documents show that bin Laden ordered the assassinations of President Barack Obama and U.S. Gen. David Petraeus, but did not have the resources to carry out the killings.

    "Obama is the head of infidelity and killing him automatically will make [Vice President Joe] Biden take over the presidency for the remainder of the term, as it is the norm over there," bin Laden wrote in a letter to one of his top lieutenants. "Biden is totally unprepared for that post, which will lead the U.S. into a crisis."
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  • #2
    I think you mean Gadahn.

    Funny thing: Gadahn's condemnation of Fox News is about the best endorsement there is.
    And his relative endorsement of Keith Olberman is about as damning as you can get.
    My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.

    Comment


    • #3
      considering gadahn's background prior to his slide into extremism, color me not surprised at his bias.
      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

      Comment


      • #4
        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). Its Arabic version brings good and detailed reports about al-Sahab releases, with a lot of quotations from the original text.
        IIRC al-Sahab is AQ's media arm and means the cloud and is actuslly the oldest part of AQ being Bin Laden's primary focuse durng the Soviet war in Afghanistan. It was also the part most closely linked with the ISI.

        But its nice to know that the Arabic version of CNN has even looser morals than Al Gore at a Buddhist Temple. The world has suspected for years that AQ releases are or contain coded messages that coordinate attacks that kill huge numbers of people so should not be aired intact but should be sanitized.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
          Funny thing: Gadahn's condemnation of Fox News is about the best endorsement there is.
          Why ?

          Does FOX need any endorsement from the radical left.

          OBL might have been pro religion but ardently anti-american, that makes the Al-Q movement a radical leftwing org.

          Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
          And his relative endorsement of Keith Olberman is about as damning as you can get.
          I got another impression from that, that Olberman goes into more depth in his reports on Al-Q. Have not read any of his reports though so that remains just an impression.
          Last edited by Double Edge; 05 May 12,, 14:59.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
            Why ?

            Does FOX need any endorsement from the radical left.
            My point was that Al-Qaida views Fox News as their unquestionable enemy, and utterly useless for passing along propaganda...unlike the other networks. And that's a ringing endorsement, needed or not, for where FNC's sympathies are.

            Personally I don't watch Fox News. Partly because, by choice, I have no television.

            But mostly because, to me, the very sound of all cable news channels is not unlike millions of vuvuzelas...they all sound the same and that sound is enough to drive me to commit seppuku. (Oh yeah, that and I'd dearly love to shove John Gibson and Glenn Beck in front of a speeding train simply on the principle of the Clean Air Act.)

            As for Fox News in general, they claim to "fair and balanced", but they are nothing of the kind and they've utterly ruined the utility of that phrase.

            Fox News would have more credibility (to me at least) if they'd simply proclaim "It's only fair that we're balancing out the massive left-wing slant in the MSM and we're damn proud of it!"

            I see no big deal with such a proclamation, given that so many other "journalists" are so proudly and openly leftist (lookin' your way Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow). Be who you are, loud and proud, and make no apologies.
            My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
              My point was that Al-Qaida views Fox News as their unquestionable enemy, and utterly useless for passing along propaganda...unlike the other networks. And that's a ringing endorsement, needed or not, for where FNC's sympathies are.
              I think its splitting hairs as to which channel helped or not. Look at the big picture.

              American media as a result of 9-11 has made Al-Q a household name, worldwide. Every time their name gets mentioned is free advertising. In that sense their importance has been largely exaggerated.

              I don't know what the point of releasing all those taped messages was, most people could not make head or tail of it. But it got OBL out there. There's any number of armed resistance groups around the world but no group got anywhere as much exposure as Al-Q did in the short amount of time they've been around. From that point of view its almost like they outsourced their PR to 'the media of the west'.

              All they needed was a spectacular event and the rest took care of itself.

              Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
              Personally I don't watch Fox News. Partly because, by choice, I have no television.

              But mostly because, to me, the very sound of all cable news channels is not unlike millions of vuvuzelas...they all sound the same and that sound is enough to drive me to commit seppuku. (Oh yeah, that and I'd dearly love to shove John Gibson and Glenn Beck in front of a speeding train simply on the principle of the Clean Air Act.)
              I have the same opinion of the TV media in my country as well. This race for ratings means they have to hook you by some means or another, entertain, scare or anger. Informing is low down the list.

              But aren't there more specialised programs worth watching. Thing is with a web connection you can stream them so maybe a TV isn't necessary.

              Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
              As for Fox News in general, they claim to "fair and balanced", but they are nothing of the kind and they've utterly ruined the utility of that phrase.

              Fox News would have more credibility (to me at least) if they'd simply proclaim "It's only fair that we're balancing out the massive left-wing slant in the MSM and we're damn proud of it!"

              I see no big deal with such a proclamation, given that so many other "journalists" are so proudly and openly leftist (lookin' your way Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow). Be who you are, loud and proud, and make no apologies.
              What stops more right wing/conservative TV media outlets from opening up.

              If Fox isn't doing a good job where is the competition. Its like Fox is the bulwark and there is nobody else. Its Fox or nothing and thats making them complacent.

              Comment


              • #8
                Tophatter Reply

                "...by choice, I have no television..."

                Bu..., Bu..., no football?!

                I understand but football and March madness?

                Really, dude? Almost unAmerican.
                "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by S2 View Post
                  "...by choice, I have no television..."

                  Bu..., Bu..., no football?!

                  I understand but football and March madness?

                  Really, dude? Almost unAmerican.
                  Ha!
                  I'm like a unicorn...the mythological male that doesn't care about sports.

                  Don't get me wrong, a sunny day at the ballpark can be fun or a Sunday afternoon at a friend's house watching the football game....

                  Oh who am I kidding? I'd be swilling beer and chowing down on hotdogs at the baseball game while looking for girls to flirt with.

                  And I'd be guzzling Captain Morgan and Cokes at my friend's house and chatting up the wives that are uninterested in the game.

                  Yes, I have a death wish.

                  Seriously though, I have a large 27" LED monitor that serves my "television" needs quite nicely (meaning movies and Archer) and I'd rather burn the money rather give it to a cable or satellite company...especially since the History Channel has gone all-reality all the time.
                  My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                    I think its splitting hairs as to which channel helped or not. Look at the big picture.
                    In that sense, you're absolutely right.

                    American media as a result of 9-11 has made Al-Q a household name, worldwide. Every time their name gets mentioned is free advertising. In that sense their importance has been largely exaggerated.
                    Now you've missed the big picture. OBL and and AQ were for a long time, and still are to a lesser extent, the voice of the disaffected in the ME. His unique approach to political change was the spectacular terrorist act and giving support to insurgencies and other terror groups. He pulled off the granddaddy of all terrorist acts on 9/11 and thus became the face of every terrorist organizations in the world. By keeping him and the attempt to capture him in the news not only were his bloody tactics subject to world-wide condemnation, but it sent a clear message that terrorists will be hunted down and killed. Ergo, terrorism doesn't work. In the end all the attention focused on him gave his demise that much more impact.
                    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Gadahn seems to have a view of the media coloured by US sensibilities, not global ones. In Europe and most (non-US-influenced) Arab countries every single channel he endorses would be disdained for being too pro-american. CNN foremost.

                      As for calling AQ "radical left" for anti-american views, that's about as correct as calling Hitler a communist. Or FDR a national socialist for his domestic policies in the 30s.
                      Last edited by kato; 06 May 12,, 22:05.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                        Now you've missed the big picture. OBL and and AQ were for a long time, and still are to a lesser extent, the voice of the disaffected in the ME.
                        Your state dept has a number of orgs on its terrorist list, but as a result of the media coverage, Al-Q gets elevated to mythic proportions in comparison to others. Its this wide perception gap between Al-Q & others that i was referring to.

                        Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                        His unique approach to political change was the spectacular terrorist act and giving support to insurgencies and other terror groups. He pulled off the granddaddy of all terrorist acts on 9/11 and thus became the face of every terrorist organizations in the world.
                        His focus was primarily anti-west, specifically US. Priorities differ in that sense from others that might be sympathetic to Al-Q.

                        'Became the face of ever terrorist org around the world' is a byproduct of the coverage he received. Implies Al-Q is like an umbrella org that hovers above the rest which isn't true at all. They might draw inspiration but planning & operational aspects would still be very much down the local outfit concerned.

                        Have read reports that OBL was quite frustrated with the efforts of these orgs, his LOC to them was cut off to a great extent almost non-existent.

                        Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                        By keeping him and the attempt to capture him in the news not only were his bloody tactics subject to world-wide condemnation, but it sent a clear message that terrorists will be hunted down and killed. Ergo, terrorism doesn't work. In the end all the attention focused on him gave his demise that much more impact.
                        I'm not sure about that bolded bit. It implies that terrorism is less likely as a result of his death than not. If you consider that there were no acts of similar magnitude since 9-11 up to his death last year, you went 10 years without a signficant attack while OBL was still alive. I put this down to the scaled up efforts of your govt to interdict terror groups in general over anything else.

                        Its like saying, for the US, terrorism began & ended with OBL. To some extent that is true because they were the only org that actively targeted the US. But for those outside the US its not true at all. I see terrorism as an organic movement that waxes and wanes over time. My country has been subjected to terrorism from different orgs over the years.

                        Originally posted by kato
                        Gadahn seems to have a view of the media coloured by US sensibilities, not global ones
                        Exactly.

                        Originally posted by kato
                        As for calling AQ "radical left" for anti-american views, that's about as correct as calling Hitler a communist. Or FDR a national socialist for his domestic policies in the 30s.
                        Said that because i could not think of a right wing armed resistance org that is anti-US.

                        Hitler was a radical national socialist. Socialist is left wing. Mussolini otoh hand came from the right.

                        Unsure what to say about FDR.
                        Last edited by Double Edge; 07 May 12,, 16:31.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                          Said that because i could not think of a right wing armed resistance org that is anti-US.
                          LTTE, PKK, ETA, AUC...

                          Depending on the definition of "anti-american" (anti-USA / anti-US-government) also most militia groups in the US itself.

                          Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                          Hitler was a radical national socialist. Socialist is left wing.
                          Umm... no. Only if you separate the words nationalism and socialism. There isn't a single portion of national socialism that was socialist.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The roots of the party were to draw people away from the Left, hence the name National Socialist German Workers' Party.

                            "Initially Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric" and there was certainly a strong socialist element to it initially.

                            Certainly Hitler had no interest in the socialist aspects of the party and the Röhm purge was a clear reflection of that (besides eliminating a powerful rival)
                            My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                              "Initially Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric" and there was certainly a strong socialist element to it initially.
                              All anti-capitalist rhetorics of the NSDAP were anti-semitist at their core. Equating capitalism with jews, painting jews as capitalists earning money without working for it.
                              Hence why similar anti-capitalist rhetorics are frowned upon today, calling a capitalist a parasite is essentially considered non-PC (there was a drawn-out debate on this a couple years ago; considering a capitalist to be a parasite isn't questioned in any way, it's calling them that that's the problem).

                              There was a single anti-capitalist item in the NSDAP's 25-point-program from 1920, the "breaking of the interest servitude" - essentially a demand to abolish stock exchanges and stop paying interest on government bonds (i.e. abolishing capital gains). The sole purpose of this item was to increase support among Germany's destitute worker masses, it was not in any way considered a realistic political demand. Within 5 years it was even publicly claimed nothing but a hollow phrase and "nonsense" (Göbbels) by the NSDAP leadership.
                              Last edited by kato; 07 May 12,, 21:58.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X