Oh, yes, the race-baiter himself. I see he nervously avoids getting too personal off the bat.. Elephant in the room? What elephant? Well, won't bother watching the rest myself but I look forward to any dingalinks when the race-baiter finds himself flummoxed and, in an oh-so-clever distraction technique, starts hurling the racist charges.

Ooops. Some of the documents released have the names of Afghan civilians who have helped out Allied forces. Peoples' names and their villages are listed. edit: (Hey, Attacker "call them racists" man and Joshua Foust say this too, yay!)

Uh-oh. Looks like a wingnut fauxtrage frenzy 'bout ready to blow! Hang in there, Spencer. And laugh at them for their sudden embrace of Political Correctness. I'll be back to watch the diavlog later.

Mr. Ackerman: Thank you for your excellent analysis and commentary. I wanted to call attention to two very minor points. First, "criteria" is a plural noun. See Webster's: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criterion . The singular is "criterion." Second, as Mr. Foust notes, Excel is not a database; it's a spreadsheet, which is a program designed primarily to help accountants process sets of numbers, such as budgets and financial statements. In my experience, Excel is very good at that. In fact, I bet if you ask military personnel who do accounting or budgeting, they will have very positive things to say about Excel.

What they teach you on day one at Columbia Journalism School http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/297...0:48&out=10:52

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/297...0:02&out=10:18 shocking!!! Julian Assange makes decisions about what to publish on his site - its almost like he is doing what someone like, oh say spencer ackerman does. he publishes things he wants, and not other things that he doesn't want to!!!!! BFD the pearl clutching from the media about some "rogue element" that just publishes information as if it were valuable to people to know what is going on is pretty funny to me. After the record of the NYT during the bush years, i'll take Julian Assange's judgements over theirs - it'll cost fewer lives in the long run.

Cross-posting this here because I think some may find it interesting. Jay Rosen on Wikki-leaks and the change of power in modern journalism.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Cross-posting this here because I think some may find it interesting. Jay Rosen on Wikki-leaks and the change of power in modern journalism.

good article, thanks.

After the Journolist Ackerman "call them racists" revelations, how anyone could believe a word he says (or even would be interested in his views) amazes me. But it's nice to see the clique label demands for journalistic ethics as 'political correctness'.

What they teach you on day one at Columbia Journalism School

Not sure which day this bit of journalistic excellence is imparted to the aspiring zealots, I mean journalists: "On the question of liberals coordinating, what the hell’s wrong with some critical mass of liberal bloggers & journalists saying the following among themselves:

“McCain lies about his maverick status. Routinely, cavalierly, cynically. Palin lies about her maverick status. Ditto, ditto, ditto. McCain has a wretched temperament. McCain is a warmonger. Palin belongs to a crackpot church and feels warmly about a crackpot party that trashes America…

Again. And again. Vary the details. There are plenty. Somebody on the ‘list posted a strong list of McCain lies earlier today. Hammer it. Philosophize, as Nietzsche said, with a hammer. I don’t know about any of you, but I’m not waiting for any coordination. Get on with it!" - Todd Gitlin - Professor, Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism No, this wasn't a raging teenager on Facebook, ths was a professor of journalism at

But remember, while this and many other examples of message coordination were going down, any time someone actually mentioned 'message coordination', or a variation of that term, little Ezra would remind them not to talk about it, errrrr, it was not allowed.

I haven't commented earlier because I have mixed feelings about the List. Secretive societies for journalists or clubby in-groups are somewhat offensive and lead to a insular world view, self-reinforcing and incestuous. On the other hand, there is a lot to be said for partisan journalism. I have lived in countries in Europe and the Americas where the press is openly partisan. Some of the best newspapers in the world are openly left or right. Playing it that way avoids the pretense of objectivity that's a feature of the US media. You can be partisan as a journalist and still accurate. As a further safeguard, you can have a truly non-partisan and independent set of media watchdogs, and you can beef up the ethics courses at journalism schools and at in-service workshops and seminars. So the List may be a sign of evolving ethical practices and an attempt to include the

Quoting Wonderment: I haven't commented earlier because I have mixed feelings about the List. Secretive societies for journalists or clubby in-groups are somewhat offensive and lead to a insular world view, self-reinforcing and incestuous.

On the other hand, there is a lot to be said for partisan journalism. I have lived in countries in Europe and the Americas where the press is openly partisan. Some of the best newspapers in the world are openly left or right. Playing it that way avoids the pretense of objectivity that's a feature of the US media.

You can be partisan as a journalist and still accurate. As a further safeguard, you can have a truly non-partisan and independent set of media watchdogs, and you can beef up the ethics courses at journalism schools and at in-service workshops and seminars.

So the List may be a sign of evolving ethical practices and an attempt to include the blogging universe in the conversation of regular on-the-job journalists. Maybe eventually the NYT comes completely out of the closet as a lefty organization and the WSJ and Washington Times does the same on the right.

That doesn't mean that

I suspect so do lawyers, doctors, and fiction authors. It's been said many times now: the proper place to be looking for evidence of such a problem is the participants' work-product.

Could be apples and oranges. For example, I see little wrong with defense attorneys and prosecutors having their private lists for their private pet peeves and burning issues. Prosecutors can advocate for longer sentences for convicted kidnappers, and defense attorneys can advocate for stricter adherence to Miranda rights. I'd look askance, however, at conservative or liberal judges having their private lists. If journalism is more like jurisprudence with strict standards of objectivity, then the Klein list should be criticized. If, however, journalism is more like dermatology, criminal defense or homeopathy, there may not be a big issue. Anyway, that's what I was trying to get at in the previous post: how "objective" and non-partisan should journalism be?

the proper place to be looking for evidence of such a problem is the participants' work-product.

More fleshing out of example: I think that would be hard to discern and would lead to lots of accusations of bias. I mean, how would you feel if you heard that Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas were on a secret list discussing strategies with other conservative anti-abortion, pro-gun and anti-gay judges, lawyers and litigants? (No judge would ever do that, but that's actually the point.) If you looked at the work product, however, (striking down Roe v. Wade, for example) how would you determine that the list had influenced the decision?

Quoting Wonderment: Could be apples and oranges.

For example, I see little wrong with defense attorneys and prosecutors having their private lists for their private pet peeves and burning issues. Prosecutors can advocate for longer sentences for convicted kidnappers, and defense attorneys can advocate for stricter adherence to Miranda rights.

I'd look askance, however, at conservative or liberal judges having their private lists.

If journalism is more like jurisprudence with strict standards of objectivity, then the Klein list should be criticized. If, however, journalism is more like dermatology, criminal defense or homeopathy, there may not be a big issue.

Anyway, that's what I was trying to get at in the previous post: how "objective" and non-partisan should journalism be?

I can't say I entirely disagree. I would say that Judges have a special place reserved for them by the Constitution and are agents of the State, which, for me, makes that an unconvincing analogy. (I acknowledge that the First Amendment implicit reserves a special place for journalism - but, I'd argue that it differs in kind to that granted to judges.)

Quoting Wonderment: More fleshing out of example:

I think that would be hard to discern and would lead to lots of accusations of bias. I mean, how would you feel if you heard that Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas were on a secret list discussing strategies with other conservative anti-abortion, pro-gun and anti-gay judges, lawyers and litigants? (No judge would ever do that, but that's actually the point.)

If you looked at the work product, however, (striking down Roe v. Wade, for example) how would you determine that the list had influenced the decision?

That wouldn't affect my argument. Se my comment of a moments ago for one reason: http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showth...231#post172231 But also I think that implicit in your argument is that holding and being informed by personal opinions is implicitly wrong for journalists. I don't think that's so, even for straight reporters. Colluding to cheat would be wrong. Coordinated lies, likewise. And evidence that reporters were doing those things would be very bad, indeed. But, speaking to like-minded people? Comparing notes, gossiping, ranting about people you despise? So what? As long as your output is fair (and I think in most cases that's a thing you can judge from the outside) I don't have a problem with that - left or right.

I can't say I entirely disagree. I would say that Judges have a special place reserved for them by the Constitution and are agents of the State, which, for me, makes that an unconvincing analogy. (I acknowledge that the First Amendment implicit reserves a special place for journalism - but, I'd argue that it differs in kind to that granted to judges.)

It just gets messy. You also have the perception of wrongdoing problem, even if there is no wrongdoing, as in "Climategate."

Ackerman has not made a comment on his outrageous statements, let alone a sincere apology. I believe, like Sherrod(!) in redemption, but you have to first acknowledge your sin. He hoped that accusing random conservatives with the racism charged, he would put his opponents on defense and move the focus away from criticisms of his preferred people and policies. Currently, he appears to hope not addressing his repulsive statements is the most expedient to way to weather this storm. Good luck with that. His statements suggests he uses a 'by any means necessary' rhetorical strategy, and it seems not to have changed. Everyone filters events through a theory, and so is partisan to some degree, but he's so far out there he has zero credibility. He should be a trial lawyer, not a journalist.

Quoting eric: Ackerman has not made a comment on his outrageous statements, let alone a sincere apology. I believe, like Sherrod(!) in redemption, but you have to first acknowledge your sin. He hoped that accusing random conservatives with the racism charged, he would put his opponents on defense and move the focus away from criticisms of his preferred people and policies. Currently, he appears to hope not addressing his repulsive statements is the most expedient to way to weather this storm. Good luck with that. His statements suggests he uses a 'by any means necessary' rhetorical strategy, and it seems not to have changed.

Everyone filters events through a theory, and so is partisan to some degree, but he's so far out there he has zero credibility. He should be a trial lawyer, not a journalist.

eric's judgment re spackerman's credibility must weigh deeply on Spencer. We can only hope the guilt drives him to emit a mea culpa soon, and perhaps even in this very spot. Unfortunately for the above theory, we can (and should!) accuse non-random high-profile Republicans like Breitbart, Beck, and Limbaugh of racism, or its moral equivalent (i.e. using the racism of others for their own ends), in

So the big scandal is that an opinionated blogger made an idle threat in private that he nor any of his colleagues followed through on? Go ahead feed that conservative victim complex, I know you want to. Spencer has a strong body of reporting to stand on, if you have an issue with his body of work by all means criticize him all you like.

I am working on a Wikileaks post of my own (I've finally finished reading the whole archive). But some reflections on this DV: 1. The point about the poor embedding of the US army in the local economy is well-taken, as is the point of the comparatively low pay given to Afghan national soldiers. But as Joshua points out, making US army bases into major centers of Afghan life is a dangerous strategy that embroils us in tribal relationships that we don't really want to play up. Moreover, I think asking the army to make that a primary goal seems to me to usurp even more power from the State Department, which is supposed to worry about Afghan development. 2. Towards the end of the DV, the 'heads discuss the contrast, socially and politically, between eastern Afghanistan and southern Afghanistan. They also note, elsewhere in the DV, that it was in the East that the US operations were focused before McChrystal introduced COIN to the war effort. These two points are key. As I'll outline in an upcoming post, I think both the shift to COIN--and the shift southwards that flowed from it--were misguided. I'd say more, but I'm

How the heck did we get from Afghanistan to Sherrod? I haven't heard any of the stuff about Ackerman outside of this diavlog, but this example of his work seems to be what I would call real journalism. Both he and Josh seem to be very well informed, balanced in their opinions and passionate about their subject.

Quoting eric: Ackerman has not made a comment on his outrageous statements, let alone a sincere apology. I believe, like Sherrod(!) in redemption, but you have to first acknowledge your sin. He hoped that accusing random conservatives with the racism charged, he would put his opponents on defense and move the focus away from criticisms of his preferred people and policies. Currently, he appears to hope not addressing his repulsive statements is the most expedient to way to weather this storm. Good luck with that. His statements suggests he uses a 'by any means necessary' rhetorical strategy, and it seems not to have changed.

Quoting AemJeff: Unfortunately for the above theory, we can (and should!) accuse non-random high-profile Republicans like Breitbart, Beck, and Limbaugh of racism, or its moral equivalent (i.e. using the racism of others for their own ends), in perfect conscience.

Please be so kind as to tell me how accusing high profile repubs of racism in perfect conscience is suggested by what Eric wrote. I read it three times and I just can't see it.

Quoting badhatharry: Please be so kind as to tell me how accusing high profile repubs of racism in perfect conscience is suggested by what Eric wrote. I read it three times and I just can't see it.

Eric is referring to/complaing about Ackerman talking about making that sort of accusation on Journolist.

As his employer put it:

"We hired Spencer Ackerman for his well-informed national security reporting and fully support it. Anyone with access to Google can discover his political leanings, as well as his long track record of top-notch opinion journalism from Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and the Pentagon,” a Wired spokeswoman told POLITICO.

From

Josh's radical rule of journolism.

Quoting Wonderment: I haven't commented earlier because I have mixed feelings about the List. Secretive societies for journalists or clubby in-groups are somewhat offensive and lead to a insular world view, self-reinforcing and incestuous.....

You can be partisan as a journalist and still accurate. As a further safeguard, you can have a truly non-partisan and independent set of media watchdogs, and you can beef up the ethics courses at journalism schools and at in-service workshops and seminars.

I think something that is objectively wrong and different from the things that you mentioned was the concerted effort to affect the political landscape and to do so in a stealth manner. Calling the opposition racist in an effort to silence them, making stuff up about political candidates, trying to get your colleagues to stop reporting on issues such as the Jeremiah Wright stuff...these are all much more offensive and blatant than just having a bias.
If something like this were found to exist on the right I would be equally disapproving. As far as journalism schools teaching ethics... One of the members of the 'club' was a PHD teaching at Columbia School of

Quoting AemJeff: Eric is referring to/complaing about Ackerman talking about making that sort of accusation on Journolist.

Waaaay too deep for me.

I think something that is objectively wrong and different from the things that you mentioned was the concerted effort to affect the political landscape and to do so in a stealth manner.

Sounds to me like the outrageous posts were cherry-picked so that the worst appears to be the typical. It's like taking a snapshot of a Birther at a Tea Party rally or a 9/11 conspiracy nut at a pro-peace rally and jumping to conclusions about the larger groups based on the dumbest among them.

As far as journalism schools teaching ethics... One of the members of the 'club' was a PHD teaching at Columbia School of Journalism. It was he who set out to strategically destroy the reputation of Palin and McCain and apparently still sees nothing wrong with what he was doing.

Ironic, but all the more reason to beef up the ethics curriculum.

Caveat emptor.

Always good advice.

Great diavlog - more, please! Assange has justified his companies' action. http://radcontra.wordpress.com/2010/...pocrisy-video/

Quoting badhatharry: Waaaay too deep for me.

Actually, come back to the surface. Jeff has no point.

Quoting Baltimoron: Great diavlog - more, please!

Assange has justified his companies' action.

http://radcontra.wordpress.com/2010/...pocrisy-video/

"We strip out the harm" The all powerful "we" and the only true and rightous definers of "harm". Weasel.

How can a guy who writes for WIRED not know that Excel isn't a database. Did WIRED do any due diligence?

Quoting SWHansen: How can a guy who writes for WIRED not know that Excel isn't a database. Did WIRED do any due diligence?

Excel may not formally be a database management system, but from the point of view of somebody researching an archive stored in .xls or .csv it's certainly functioning as a database manager. I know for sure that there are SQL drivers that will interface with Excel such that you can execute queries, though I don't know how deeply the functionality goes. I'd say he's perfectly justified in using that terminology.

Yeah. and while it may be incorrect, in my experience (15 years) in business, everybody refers to excel as a database.

Quoting Whatfur: "We strip out the harm" The all powerful "we" and the only true and rightous definers of "harm".

You're not to be comforted that Assange is protecting the nation's security? Jeez, what's your problem?

When Assange talked about his company's reviewing process, I pictured a set-up like the circular firing squad in the first episode of the new season of "Mad Men" - with everyone looking to Assange, a.k.a. Don Draper, to answer for them.

Excuse me, two people have pointed out that Excel is not a database but a spreadsheet, and that Ackerman should know this. But Excel does have database functions, an awful lot of people in the business world do use it as their only database software, so this error of Ackerman's is not as egregious as people are making out. Moreover, some smaller subset of people do use Excel exclusively as a database and not at all to make calculations. Clearly, Ackerman is not a number-cruncher and does not hang around with number-crunchers. Big deal. It's nice, in a quaint way, that this presumably not-at-all- rich journalist can be in the same category of people as John McCain and lots of other executive types who don't have a clue about what is inside a computer. There are probably a few big-time investment bankers who don't know how to use Excel or any other spreadsheet software.

Quoting Baltimoron: When Assange talked about his company's reviewing process, I pictured a set-up like the circular firing squad in the first episode of the new season of "Mad Men" - with everyone looking to Assange, a.k.a. Don Draper, to answer for them.

Don't know the series, I watch little TV. But did just youTube a couple Mad Men clips, looks like a hoot.

Not to mention there are alot of "programs" out there that are basically Excel+Alot of pre-loaded macros, such as timberline office.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Not to mention there are alot of "programs" out there that are basically Excel+Alot of pre-loaded macros, such as timberline office.

To those who work with database software everyday (Oracle). Excel is not the same animal. Just like Lotus was not dBase. Adding bells or whistles in attempts to equate them will fall short and is hyping overlap and ignoring differences.

Quoting Whatfur: To those who work with database software everyday (Oracle). Excel is not the same animal. Just like Lotus was not dBase. Adding bells or whistles in attempts to equate them will fall short and is hyping overlap and ignoring differences.

Quite true. Choose the right tool for your job. But the word "database" simply means an organized collection of data. A stack of 3"x5" cards can be a database.

Quoting Simon Willard: Quite true. Choose the right tool for your job. But the word "database" simply means an organized collection of data. A stack of 3"x5" cards can be a database.

Yep - or a stack of crumbled paperscraps with pencil-scraw on them.

An argument from The Economist about the value of the Wikileaks scandal I've not heard in other venues.

The diary has been widely compared to the Pentagon Papers, a leaked official history showing how Lyndon Johnson’s administration had lied about its strategy in Vietnam. But President Barack Obama has been telling the truth. And none of the big claims is new. Even America’s generals have said that there can be no clear victory in Afghanistan. If ordinary people already know that their soldiers are dying in Afghanistan and that the fight is hard, why should a blizzard of details lead to a sudden shift in public opinion?

Yet despite its absence of startling revelations, the diary is useful. It serves to remind its readers why America changed its strategy in Afghanistan, and why the administration would be wrong to bow to pressure to change it back again.

Debate in Washington about what to do in Afghanistan centres around two military strategies. One is counterterrorism (CT), championed by the vice-president, Joe Biden, which would give up trying to build a state and concentrate on killing enemies. Under CT, troops

Quoting AemJeff: Yep - or a stack of crumbled paperscraps with pencil-scraw on them.

Exactly! Most people who work with database software equate spreadsheets to pretty much that. Joshua addressed it correctly when Spencer misspoke. His mispeaking is not that big a deal but does speak to a certain ignorance..which this thread shows he is not alone in.

The Unaleaker.

I'm trying to get my head around the differences between a "Database" and a "Spreadsheet". This is what I've come up with; A spreadsheet is simply a place where information is aggregated by various parameters, but little or no manipulation is done to generate new information, and the information's format is largely unchanged. A database generates both new information and new formats from the information that was input into it via some form of spreadsheet. So there are these two applications I've used. The first name I forgot, but essentially what it did was turn a spreadsheet of information into motor-loop/instrument-loop schematics. The latter was the standard Excel somehow combine different information blocks per pre-inputed instructions to make new information blocks routine. The former can be considered a database, but the latter can be only considered a spreadsheet. ?

I would have said more or less the opposite of what you said in your first paragraph, starwatcher. A spreadsheet is a matrix of information that gets manipulated, typically arithmetically or algebraically, to produce new information. A database is a matrix of information that gets manipulated, primarily by sorting procedures, to produce subsets of the original matrix. But a database can also be manipulated algebraically in order to produce new information that was not part of the original matrix of information. Relational databases can also combine and sort different matrices of information to produce new information. In a general way, the database seems to be primarily related to set theory in mathematics, whereas the spreadsheet is an advanced tool for performing calculations. The database I have been using since 1986, Paradox, seems to be just a more powerful version of a spreadsheet, say Excel. It can duplicate, via its programming or query functions, any calculation that a spreadsheet can perform, but it is more cumbersome to use for these purposes than a spreadsheet would be. It is considerably more supple and powerful than Excel, however, for sorting a matrix of information. If I want to perform arithmetic or mathematical

Quoting ledocs: I would have said more or less the opposite of what you said in your first paragraph, starwatcher. A spreadsheet is a matrix of information that gets manipulated, typically arithmetically or algebraically, to produce new information. A database is a matrix of information that gets manipulated, primarily by sorting procedures, to produce subsets of the original matrix. But a database can also be manipulated algebraically in order to produce new information that was not part of the original matrix of information. Relational databases can also combine and sort different matrices of information to produce new information. In a general way, the database seems to be primarily related to set theory in mathematics, whereas the spreadsheet is an advanced tool for performing calculations.

The database I have been using since 1986, Paradox, seems to be just a more powerful version of a spreadsheet, say Excel. It can duplicate, via its programming or query functions, any calculation that a spreadsheet can perform, but it is more cumbersome to use for these purposes than a spreadsheet would be. It is considerably more supple and powerful than Excel, however, for sorting a matrix of information.

If I want to perform arithmetic or mathematical