Madsen doth protest too much...

[EMunster]

Madsen's mistaken "October Surprise" article was just one more element in a vast misdirection of Rovian proportions. That's why I would not like to put people off reading his material. Reading Madsen has it's advantages.

It's an excellent way of figuring out what Karl Rove wants you to think!

Or it was up until now anyway.



The above is the only place where a critic of Madsen (Linked just below) dabbles in the extremes of the reporter he criticizes.

Much better you read the whole thing.

http://www.breakfornews.com/articles/MadsenVoteFraudTaleSpin.htm




Responds Madsen...

This guy is an obvious plant by the neo cons to discredit those opposed to the New Reich powers who are trying to screw our democratic system. And these SOBs even have to rely on foreign shysters with faux Irish names to carry their dirty laundry. Pathetic situation. He attacks me, Clint Curtis, and steals with impunity the intellectual property of Onlinejournal without attribution. But what can you expect from these right-wing cretans? They must all be "Good Germans."

wm

I am a Madsen fan, despite all. Lots of what is circulating today simply would not be known without him. But in my ideal world I would want him to be better than the above . What the author he so dismisses does is boil Madsen's reporting down to what's useful. The author preserves and distills the facts of exactly what we so value about Madsen's reporting. The criticism of Madsen is really about style, NOT the core substance of Madsen's report.

So, rejoice!

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. Is the "E" for Eddie? As in Eddie Munster?

[EMunster]

2. Yup

[Hamoth]

3. MAdsens credibility hangs by a thread for me

He claims the guys is an "OBVIOUS PLANT". He does this in no uncertain terms. Regardles of how offended he is, he just spewed something he could not back up. The guy is anything but an obvious plant. It has the same flavor of the fairly grandiose statements his reports offer.

[jamboi]

11. That does seem perhaps impulsive, but the Dunne piece is ex. harsh

and coming from someone who otherwise seems to be pushing for progressive causes, so I kinda understand Madsen's anger/feeling of betrayal. Also I don't know that Madsen can't back it up. He knows a lot and has been around the block. I can certainly see why Madsen would suspect a Rovian disinformation ploy after reading the article and knowing what I know see how far off it is.

[Hamoth]

13. Knowing what you know?

You keep saying that...what does that mean? "Knowing what I know"? It kinda makes the impression that you have secret information that we don't. Is that what you are asserting here?

I didn't see any invalid cirticisms in the post. Nor did I see a valid challenge in response from Madsen. I have quite a few issues of my own with the story being asserted.

[jamboi]

19. There's lots of correspondence I've had with Madsen that lets me know that

Dunne's article is off the mark.

[papau]

15. Clint Curtis is for real - Madsen is waiting a bit more detail.

:toast:

:-)

[Clark2008]

4. Hmmmm....

This guy is an obvious plant by the neo cons to discredit those opposed to the New Reich powers who are trying to screw our democratic system. And these SOBs even have to rely on foreign shysters with faux Irish names to carry their dirty laundry.

This is nearly the same thing he said about Wes Clark - except I don't think he called him Irish.

He should really get a new angle.

[jamboi]

12. I agree that came across sounding over the top. Might have a lot of truth

to it, but is very off-putting.

[jamboi]

5. I think the essence of what gets in the way of Madsen communicating

is 1) A sprawling writing style that sometimes has word choices that are unclear to the reader.

2) His brain is probably this incredible database of organized crime and spy stuff and sometimes he'll refer to things he knows about, forgetting that his audience might not follow him. He can connect the dots and understand the meaning of the narrative network he is uncovering marvelously better than most all of his readers.

3) Especially in this case he's writing about a story that he hasn't had time to put all the pieces together on yet, but due to timing considerations needs to put it out there ASAP.

4) He's aware of the fact that putting information out may help smoke out more leads. For example I think that's what he was doing with the bogus check and why he gave us all the details on it. It did lead to other information and people coming forward, so I guess that's one tactic of investigative reporting that might not be kosher in the MSM, but which he's used to great effect here.

5) In his worst moments he falls into stereotyping (as in the example above). I think he was angry at the fallacies in the Dunne article and let it get the better of him. Wish he hadn't, but I kind of understand it at the same time.

I'm not sure what you mean by Dunne "boil Madsen's reporting to what's useful" because I don't get that by reading Dunne's piece at all. I do agree that it would wise to provide editing assistance and reassemble the narrative in a way that comes across more effectively to the average reader. But hey, we're all on deadline in this race, so I'm not complaining for what he's given us.

[clydefrand]

6. I will ask again this morning of those of you who have the answer

or an opinion. Why aren't these people, Madsen and Curtis not going directly to the mainstream media with their stories? If they have, why aren't they paying attention to them? If they haven't, why haven't they?

[jamboi]

7. Madsen reports he is getting MSM help on the story on the sly.

Curtis tried for the longest time and is finally being heard.

[clydefrand]

8. If he is getting help from MSM, why in tarnation aren't they

reporting it? Something sounds rotten in Denmark to me.

[jamboi]

9. I guess I should say that starting around the end of last week he reported

to me that he was getting MSM help in quiet ways. That may have been when their help started. I don't know the details. I've noticed that the Election Fraud story continues to grow in coverage and the Conyers forum this morning (which Madsen already briefed Conyers as well as Kerry camp folks for) should really start to break things free.

[pointsoflight]

21. You point to Madsen, I point to MSM itself.

You ask why MSM isn't reporting on Madsen, suggesting that that's evidence that something is wrong with Madsen's story. Sorry, that logic doesn't fly, because it's also the case that MSM has not reporting on KNOWN and well established irregularities with the election. They have not reported on the lockdown in Ohio. They have not reported on the literally dozens of known miscounts that even election officials have admitted. They have not reported on reversals of election results that have occurred as a result of recounts. They have not reported on the very suspect practices of throwing out registrations and provisionals. They have not reported on the differences in procedures, numbers of machines, etc. in going from white America to minority America.

The point? The lack of reporting of a story in MSM does NOT mean that that story has no merit.

[EMunster]

10. As someone who use to be a member, I think you give the MSM...

...too much credit. Anything that falls outside...hmmmm -- for lack of a better term -- FRAME (the view of the world understood and created by their employers)they will not report without vigorous scrutiny. It's not about "truth," mind you, but the world view (and too much today, the agenda) of the Powers-That-Be.

[John Q. Citizen]

14. What the MSM reports on or doesn't seems to have a number of

variables.

There is the media watchdog group who does an annual list of the most under-reported stories of the year. Those under-reported stories often fall under the "FRAME" catagory you mentioned.

Peter Jennings assertions (in the context of this election) that the media will report on any good story out of professional pride/self interest doesn't wash, especiallly when one looks at the number of great stories the media ignors.

One of my favorites is the story of the close connections between the Bush family and the family of John Hinkley, the man convicted of attempting to assasinate President Reagan. For whatever reason, that story barely made it into print (something like one big city newspaper reported on it once) and totally escaped broadcast news, even though it's a great and facinating story with tons of documentable evidence.

There is also the issue of MSM creating the FRAME. We saw this after the surprise election results this year when it was widely reported that the youth vote never materialised, (then later reporeted that it did) that the hispanic vote jumped for Bush (then it didn't.)

Most interesting also is when different media do battle over a reported story, as we saw with the so-called "Rather-Gate" this year or with the "Freeway Ricky" story repoted on by the San Jose Mercury which was then attacked by the LA Times and the NY Times through a strawman approach. I guess this would be called defending the FRAME.

[mirrera]

16. Robert W. McChesney's book on the media

puts it in a very simple context. Our television news reporters are owned by corporations. We all know that, but we are supposed to believe that they have autonomy and are fair and balanced despite their owner's world view. In order to maintain the appearance of being impartial, they only report what "experts" say. This is cheap—no investigating, safe—no court cases, and gives the appearance of being controversial— adding to their appearance of being daring and hard hitting.

The republican drumbeat of "Liberal Media" has finally worked to such an extent that they now say nothing to advance the cause of liberal ideas, unless an "expert" is loud about it. Thus nothing happened until Jesse spoke. Thus we now hear oodles about the Democratic party involved in the re-count.

This is why we need an overhaul of the DNC. They are the only voice the MSM will report, The DNC is stealing our thunder and turning it into an impotent whisper.

[Sideways]

18. Great Freaking Post Wonderful Analysis

Welcome to DU!

[Roger_Otip]

17. Divide and rule

Bev and Olbermann going at one another, Bev and DU, now Madsen vs. Dunne - all this is a distraction and a waste of energy. I guess if I were Rove I would try to set people against one another - but I don't think this is being caused by Rove, it's more peoples' egos and frustration.

Whatever, it's totally counter-productive and has got to stop. You're all on the same side, but you don't all have to agree with one another. If people are attacking the fraud issue from different angles then surely that's a good thing. It increases the chances of success.

Meanwhile the rest of us should be questioning these theories with skepticism and not putting all our eggs in one basket. It would be a big help though if people could stop using emotive language like "debunked" and "smoking gun" - nothing is that definite.

[jamboi]

20. Hear, hear! n/t