by robertdreed » Sat Apr 08, 2006 5:04 pm
I don't consider Wayne Madsen to be a peddler of dangerous disinformation on the Internet. <br><br>I don't consider him a fully reliable source, either.<br><br>The reason that I don't consider him to be a dangerous peddler of disinfo is that I haven't known him to put up anything on his board that's so totally off-base that it disgraces anyone who repeats it. <br><br>If he's a pernicious disinformationist, he's still in the process of building his credibility, not exploiting it. <br><br>The reason I don't consider Madsen to be a fully reliable source is due to things like his occasional sloppiness; his oft-trumpeted reliance on "inside sources" who might in fact be feeding him bogus info on occasion; and the fact that much of the content of his website was previously broken by other sources. <br><br>I'd consider him more reliable if some of his wilder allegations were at some point shown to be factual- i.e., the claim that Abu Ghraib videos were being hoarded for a select cabal of perverted voyeurs in high reaches of the Executive branch. I don't think that's out of the question, but hard evidence would help.<br><br>I'll need to review his posts on the Fitzgerald/Plame leak. As I recall, his narrative of that has been largely accurate, and ahead of the curve. <br><br>Anyway, Wayne Madsen is still on my "undecided" list, as far as whether he's a credible Internet journalist. I have to admit, not too many people make the cut beyond that point. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>