You Can’t Handle the Truth

I really have no idea what the folks at Wired magazine are thinking, because I can’t come up with any good excuse as to why they refuse to release the entire Manning chat logs. I can come up with some random conspiratorial excuses, but none of them are flattering- they have distorted the message of the chat by selectively releasing things out of context, they are worried the Pentagon will restrict Danger Room’s access if they release anything that seems to exonerate Manning, there is something more to the relationship between Poulson and Lamo that we don’t know, or they are just incompetent, arrogant hacks.

Like I said, I can come up with all sorts of reasons, but none of them are very flattering. What is particularly odd is that this is an online journal that should know better about this sort of thing- the logs will eventually come out. Maybe some of you were right about Wired, that it is basically People magazine for the online set, and I should find better sources in the future. At any rate, all we can do for now is keep the pressure up and refuse to visit Wired or any affiliates until they come clean. Hit em in the statcounter, I guess.

70 replies
  1. 1
    stuckinred says:

    So, did you know this fucking troll on the last thread is bantering on about “the truth” or is this a coincidink?

  2. 2
    JPL says:

    I can handle the “turth”…how bout you.
    John, Can we please have an open thread for the Saints/Falcons game if we behave.

  3. 3
    Eric says:

    Agreed. Glenn as usual has hit the nail on the head here.

    Who the &*^% can we even trust anymore when private corporations will fight tooth and nail to preserve our right to pr0n, but will without any charges even being filed will summarily remove WikiLeaks ability to operate (e.g., Apple, BOA, Mastercard) and news organizations like Wired (and others) will virtually ignore potentially exonerating evidence or even pursuit of the story beyond 10-second soundbites that will sell ads?

    We are totally screwed.

  4. 4
    Belvoir says:

    Greenwald did a really good comprehensive job with this article today.
    He regularly really does go on, but in this case it’s for the best, laying out the very strange threads, characters and connections. I hope this gains some traction, and some pressure on Wired/Conde Nast to address these serious sins of omission.

  5. 5
    General Stuck says:

    I’d rather watch old episodes of X Files than engage with this nonsense. In fact, I think I’ll do just that. The Truth is out there, somewhere. Only Greenwald knows where. And he’s hot on the trail. sigh

  6. 6
    Anonymous At Work says:

    John,
    None of the “random conspiratorial excuses” you offer, nor with which I can come up with in the same vein, are either random or conspiratorial. They are excuses, they are not flattering, and all point to journalistic malpractice. Wired is one good subpoena away from being the next Judith Miller.
    The least evil reason I can figure is that Wired is waiting for an actual trial to milk their access and try for a Pulitzer.

  7. 7
    freelancer says:

    @General Stuck:

    Watch the one with the sewer worm man, that gave my youngest brother nightmares for weeks.

  8. 8
    JPL says:

    I have no idea why Wired would not print the material. If they were concerned, they could send the info to another source like the Guardian.
    From Greenwald
    UPDATE: Evan Hansen, the Editor-in-Chief of Wired.com, says on Twitter that Poulsen is “on vacation” but that Wired will post a response to this article tomorrow. What they ought to do, at the absolute minimum, is post the portions of the chat logs about which Lamo had made public statements or make clear that they do not exist. And here’s Poulsen’s response on Twitter, posted just now:

  9. 9

    Shorter Greenwald, “Someone else has managed to get information that I don’t have and I want it, I want it, I want it.” He even states that others have published info from the same logs, but doesn’t seem to want to use any of that journalistic cred he claims to go out and dig up the info on his own.

  10. 10
    General Stuck says:

    @freelancer:

    Is that the one where this guy builds a nest every 50 or 60 years and eats several human livers or hearts, or something. Then goes back under.

    edit – should have clicked your link, that was another one. And yes, this one is uber creepy

  11. 11
    kdaug says:

    Spencer Ackerman does have some high-level sources.

    Wouldn’t surprise me if he wants to make sure that they keep talking to him.

    Would surprise me if he burned them.

    SOP.

  12. 12
    Zandar says:

    But…but…Julian Assange’s book deal means he’s got nothing anyway and he’s a con artist and he’s the one leaving Manning out to dry!

    Or something.

    I hate to say it, but it looks like Double G has somebody by the short and curlies here.

  13. 13
    Zandar says:

    @kdaug:

    I’d really, really hate to think Ackerman was involved in this mess. I have a lot of respect for his reporting.

  14. 14
    Loneoak says:

    FSM bless ’em, that is a convoluted story.

  15. 15
    Walker says:

    If you want a Conde Nast tech publication, read Ars Technica. Wired is a waste of time.

  16. 16
    Ash Can says:

    Is it possible that a gag order is involved?

  17. 17
    kdaug says:

    @Zandar: Yeah, that’s a real nice reporter ya got there. Shame if anything happened to him…

  18. 18
    MattR says:

    @John – A Motley Moose:

    Shorter Greenwald, “Someone else has managed to get information that I don’t have and I want it, I want it, I want it.” He even states that others have published info from the same logs, but doesn’t seem to want to use any of that journalistic cred he claims to go out and dig up the info on his own.

    Huh? This seems like a very weird take on this. From what I can tell, the only source for the logs is Poulsen/Wired. Any others who have published content from the logs have taken it from the subset of the logs that Wired has made public.

  19. 19
    eemom says:

    if Greenwald said it I don’t believe it. Being’s I’m a shithouse lawyer’n’all, that is my God-given right, that I will relinquish ONLY when you pry it from my cold dead commenterating fingers.

  20. 20
    kdaug says:

    @eemom: Lemme guess – you just saw True Grit.

  21. 21
    Three-nineteen says:

    @ General Stuck #10: What, you can’t tell the difference between Eugene Toombs and the Flukeman? That’s enough to sic the Peacock family on you!

    /ubergeek

  22. 22
    General Stuck says:

    @Three-nineteen:

    I know, I hang my head in shame. It’s just been too long.

  23. 23
    Uncle Clarence Thomas says:

    @eemom:
    .
    .

    if Greenwald said it I don’t believe it.

    You are making it exceedingly difficult to parody balloonbaggers.
    .
    .

  24. 24
    matoko_chan says:

    Assange has accused Wired of helping Lamo set up an entrapment scheme. Until I see different with my own lying eyes i believe Assange.
    Adrian Lamo sold Manning to the feds to get out of his conviction and 60k fine.
    our sleazeball jeebus humping banana republic is aiming to get Assange on conspiracy and/or espionage charges and they simply CANNOT have the whole chat logs disclosed.
    nonlinear system collapse in 3……2..1.

  25. 25
    Uncle Clarence Thomas says:

    @JPL:
    .
    .

    UPDATE: Evan Hansen, the Editor-in-Chief of Wired.com, says on Twitter that Poulsen is “on vacation” but that Wired will post a response to this article tomorrow.

    Ha ha, he’ll go find some excuses and bring ’em back tooo ya, Katie!
    .
    .

  26. 26
  27. 27

    @MattR: You have to actually read the whole, repetitious article to understand it.

    The Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima quoted from the chat logs and included several parts that (a) Wired had withheld but (b) were not about personal matters or national security secrets; see this analysis here of what was disclosed by the Post, Wired and others. (Nakashima and the Post refuse even to say whether they possess all the chat logs. When I asked Nakashima several months ago, she referred my inquiry to a corporate spokeswoman, who then told me: “We don’t discuss the details of our newsgathering.”

  28. 28
    humstain says:

    The reason seems simple to me – they have been co-opted. Threats from and then cooperation with the government.

  29. 29
    burnspbesq says:

    @matoko_chan:

    Assange has accused Wired of helping Lamo set up an entrapment scheme.

    Entirely aside from whether Assange is trustworthy on this point (his self-interest is apparent), “entrapment” is a legal term with a specific meaning. It almost certainly doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    Adrian Lamo sold Manning to the feds to get out of his conviction and 60k fine.

    Criminals do that to each other. Manning could learn a useful lesson from it.

  30. 30
    burnspbesq says:

    I could understand Greenwald trying to poison the jury pool if Manning was going to be tried in a civilian court, but so far it appears that he’s going to be court martialed, and I don’t think putting a one-sided view of the case out in the blogosphere is likely to influence the judgment of a bunch of Army officers.

  31. 31
    maus says:

    @JPL:

    I have no idea why Wired would not print the material.

    I do. Journalism these days is about safety and interconnectedness and friendship and parties, but most certainly not making waves.

  32. 32
    General Stuck says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Criminals do that to each other. Manning could learn a useful lesson from it.

    He will likely have lots of time to ponder these things. And if he was the one who released the info that pissed all over my State Department, then that lesson was earned.

  33. 33
    AAA Bonds says:

    So, wait, people are actually surprised that Poulsen and Lamo are Fed informants?

    I thought this had been CW for years at this point.

  34. 34
    burnspbesq says:

    @AAA Bonds:

    I thought this had been CW for years at this point.

    If so, surely you could link to some credible source.

  35. 35
    AAA Bonds says:

    @burnspbesq:

    You are just the sweetest, most naive little thing. I bet you’re best pals with the people who put you in jail, too.

  36. 36
    Bnut says:

    Gross, Wired, and esp. Danger Room. Ackerman and Schatman write the blandest defense news I’ve ever read.

  37. 37
    MattR says:

    @John – A Motley Moose: I missed that detail on first read, but it does not really change much. Perhaps there is one other source with the logs (or parts of them). That is really irrelevant to Glenn’s main point and doesn’t make your criticism any more valid. Do you really think that Glenn is upset that he got scooped? The only reason he cares that he does not have the full logs is that (a) they are being quoted as evidence of what Manning and/or Wikileaks were up to and there is no way to fairly evaluate those claims without the full context of the logs and (b) people with knowledge of the full logs have made contradictory statements about topics that are not in the released portions of the logs (ie. what assistance Wikileaks provided to Manning)

  38. 38
    El Tiburon says:

    @General Stuck:

    I’d rather watch old episodes of X Files than engage with this nonsense. In fact, I think I’ll do just that.

    Then go on and do it you fucktwit. Goddamn you bitch and moan like a little girl when it comes to Greenwald. At this time all I can figure is you are in the closet and Greenwald gets you all juiced up. Just come out already and be done with it.

    I find it laughable that all of you Greenwald haters have absolutely zero substance to back up your claims. It would be nice to see at least one comment with some substance.

    Example A:
    @eemom:

    if Greenwald said it I don’t believe it.

    Please link or show something where Greenwald makes a habit of being wrong. I guess what you are also saying is that Cole is a dumbass since he links to Greenwald at least once a week.

    @burnspbesq:

    I could understand Greenwald trying to poison the jury pool if Manning was going to be tried in a civilian court,

    Oh for fuck’s sake.
    Let’s see how this would go:
    “Say, potential juror #1, do you have any prejudice for or against Manning?
    “Why yes, I do. Glenn Greenwald said some stuff, so, you know, there you go.”

  39. 39
    2liberal says:

    since this is an open thread and tehre is not yet an NFL thread – the Patriots rule this year and you are all doomed. You know it in your hearts. Plus the Pats have 3 picks in first 33 of the upcoming draft.

  40. 40
    jak says:

    @freelancer:

    The ‘Home’ episode ranks near the top for outright creepiness.

  41. 41
    burnspbesq says:

    @El Tiburon:

    Yawn.

  42. 42
    General Stuck says:

    @El Tiburon:

    Then go on and do it you fucktwit. Goddamn you bitch and moan like a little girl when it comes to Greenwald. At this time all I can figure is you are in the closet and Greenwald gets you all juiced up. Just come out already and be done with it.

    LOL, playing the homophobe card. Classy there Greenwald cultist. What is it with all the sexual referencing from our firebaggers lately, and it doesn’t much matter if it’s about Obama or one of his supporters.

    I find it laughable that all of you Greenwald haters have absolutely zero substance to back up your claims. It would be nice to see at least one comment with some substance.

    Oh, I have done this many times, and funny thing, you always disappear, only to return in some other thread with some unhinged insult like with this comment. I said I didn’t care about what Greenwald had to say on this thread, you bleeping idiot.

  43. 43
    Cacti says:

    Goddamn you bitch and moan like a little girl when it comes to Greenwald. At this time all I can figure is you are in the closet and Greenwald gets you all juiced up.

    So if you disagree with the little tin Jesus of the firebaggers, you’re a bitch and a fag.

    Very progressive.

    lolz

  44. 44
    El Tiburon says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Yawn.

    Wow. I am so glad I was here to witness the greatness that was ‘yawn’. I think the term used to describe this was that I was ‘pwned’ if I am not mistaken. I shant ever shit up your leg again for fear of swift and dagger-like response.

    @Cacti:

    So if you disagree with the little tin Jesus of the firebaggers, you’re a bitch and a fag.

    No, Disagreeing w/ Greenwald is perfectly acceptable. To show up every single time he is linked to and whine and bitch gets old. It borders on some kind of obsession. I am just curious why he is so obsessive. Kind of like all the right-wing Republicans being so anti-gay then they get caught in the men’s room with their mouths on the glory-hole. Hey, whatever, nothing wrong with it.

    So pay attention. General Stuck seemed to have a big problem with Greenwald’s reporting on the conditions of Manning’s detainment and basically called it a bunch of bullshit. Turns out it was about 99% correct. I have yet to see any credible source call Greenwald out on his Wikileaks (or just about any other) reporting.

    Seems a lot of pissants around here get on ED for not backing up many of his claims. It would be nice to see General Stuck and the other closeted-types come to bat with some substance other than just WAAAAAAA!!!!! We don’t like Greenwald!!!!

  45. 45
    El Tiburon says:

    @General Stuck:

    Oh, I have done this many times, and funny thing, you always disappear, only to return in some other thread with some unhinged insult like with this comment.

    I will make a note to revisit this particular thread through tomorrow, kind sir.

    May you have a wonderful evening and I await your response.

    Toodles.

  46. 46
    matoko_chan says:

    @burnspbesq: oh hai mr. burns.
    i linked this for eemom and i thot u should see it too.
    pay special attention to the second viddie, the Ellsberg one.
    is that why you’re so butthurt all the time?
    cuz you been reamed.

  47. 47
    General Stuck says:

    @El Tiburon:

    Turns out it was about 99% correct

    Not hardly. I made my arguments then and you said nothing, and now you come around whining about it, and flinging about accusations about the sexuality of those of us who made those arguments, in that thread, that you ran away from. You are a clown, and now an ugly clown. nothing more.

    Pathetic

  48. 48
    General Stuck says:

    @El Tiburon:

    May you have a wonderful evening and I await your response.

    Toodles.

    it’s been another creepy day of blogging here in the land of hot air, and this is the cherry on top. I mean “Toodles”?

  49. 49
    Mnemosyne says:

    @2liberal:

    Angry Black Lady has heard your cries and created an NFL thread above.

  50. 50

    @MattR: Greenwald is a journalist. He knows the logs exist and, as I have shown, he acknowledges that others have either got the files or been given access to them. I would expect a journalist to try to get their hands on the information instead of complaining that someone who has access to the information isn’t using it the way he wants it to be used. This isn’t a freedom of information issue. Wired has every right to handle this any way they desire.

    I’m not normally critical of Greenwald. He’s a gadfly that serves a useful purpose. My biggest complaint is with his writing. He has a habit of repeating the same point over, and over, and over ad nauseam. I don’t need to see the same point made 4 or 5 times in the same article. I got it the first time.

  51. 51
    Dead Ernest says:

    @burnspbesq:
    No desire to jump into the party some of y’all are having but for the sake of the language we share: CW, or The Conventional Wisdom, is a not very flattering term for the alleged presumption(s) of a group sans credible evidence.
    Bowing out, carry on.

  52. 52
    MattR says:

    @John – A Motley Moose: How is he supposed to get the full logs when the original source does not have them anymore? Other than Wired, how many other people (outside of legal authorities) have them? Maybe a handful?

    Sure Wired has the right to use them as they see fit. But the NY Times had the right to publish Judith Miller the way that they did. That does not make their actions right in a moral or ethical sense, nor does it exempt them from criticism about the way that they are presenting the story. I have no more problem with Glenn criticizing Wired’s selective release of the logs than I have with the numerous criticisms of the NY Times’ granting of anonymity to their sources.

  53. 53
    fordpowers says:

    here’s you’re boy glenn on cnn earlier today…

    cnn has been completely negligent, if not down right malicious, in the way that they’ve reported this whole episode..
    its annoying.

  54. 54
    El Tiburon says:

    @John – A Motley Moose:
    Of course wired can use the logs however they see fit. GG is pointing out they are using them irresponsibly. Do you agree?

    And I think Greenwald is a bit more than a gadfly. Atrios is a more apt example of a gadfly.

    So what annoys you abbot Greenwald is that he is thorough? I am sure he would like to be bit more succinct but he continually has to make his point more clearly because a lot of people don’t get it the first time.

  55. 55
    Glinda says:

    I can think of at least a dozen scenarios that would explain why Poulsen or someone even more circumspect at Wired might decide to withhold major portions of the correspondence. But I must admit that I haven’t a clue why they were withheld because there are no facts to determine why.

    That GG’s (and his unquestioning followers’) ideological zealotry of late doesn’t prevent them from the journalistic no-no of jumping to conclusions and condemning Wired magazine, comes as no surprise sadly.

    My Irish mother would call the gossipy hordes “washer women”.

    I could take an article questioning why only 25% of the exchanges between Manning and Lamo were published with a dispassionately sober list of some of the reasons. legal and otherwise, that would have elicited that decision. But the rebitsin / rechielesnitseh among the blogosphere “journos” just love to stand at the fence and “bareden yenem” in the most outrageious way about things that they would die to know but don’t.

  56. 56
    El Tiburon says:

    @Glinda:
    To recap: this Manning/Wikileaks story is one of the most important stories to develop this year. It goes to the very core of our existence as a nation. It could very well set the tone for how we mow forward as a country,

    Wired has a lot more information that could possibly answer a lot of questions. Moreso, the people involved have A very curious relationship. Yet they refuse to release those logs or give an explanation. Meanwhile, an American sits in inhumane conditions being convicted of nothimg while an Australian may face life in prison.

    Yet it is GG and his ‘ideological zealotry’ that is the problem.

    Incredible. I wonder if some of you people need help getting dressed in the morning.

  57. 57

    @El Tiburon: That wasn’t an insult towards Greenwald or an attempt to minimize his importance. All writers are gadflies. Is there a writer in this country that can drive policy? Krugman can’t do it. Can Greenwald? Limbaugh and Beck can do it, but they aren’t writers. They are media personalities.

    I have no problem with Greenwald being through. I appreciate that in a journalist.

    I have no problem with Greenwald being through. That’s better than not giving enough information to back his points.

    I have no problem with Greenwald being through. If he would only stop repeating the same point over and over in his articles.

    I have no problem with Greenwald being through. But I get tired of reading the same point over and over.

    I have no problem with Greenwald being through. …

  58. 58

    @John – A Motley Moose: Damn it. No edit button.

    thorough

    I spotted the mistake just as I hit the submit button. Wish I’d been more thorough.

  59. 59
    junebug says:

    @John – A Motley Moose:

    Greenwald is a journalist? That’s laughable. He is not. He is a gadfly. I know from where I speak. I have been gadflying a local talker and have asked the readers here to help fight a rumor.

    Greenwald’s whole point was to get on teevee about the NYT holding back info at the behest of the Bush admin. Before that he didn’t have an interest in politics.

    Most here, including Cole don’t have the first notion of why Greenwald got into this business — and that’s what it is.

    Anyone still raising money for Mona?

    Greenwald isn’t.

  60. 60
    junebug says:

    @El Tiburon:

    And the NYT holding on a story at the behest of the GWB whitehouse was the one for a lifetime too.

    Greenwald will only ever be the one for a lifetime story.

    He missed the impeachment story. He missed everything that happened before he started blogging. Did you know that he insisted that Salon keep his blogspot format for his blog?

    Preening and belligerent. Anyone contributing to Mona?

  61. 61
    Glinda says:

    @El Tiburon: I have no problem getting dressed, and, as a matter of fact, quite appropriately on a daily basis. But from you comment I can envision what your outfit looks like from day to day.

    I gather you are one of the people for whom national security, let alone personal privacy is not to be even considered. Or perhaps your coterie is so dull that none of your correspondence could be an invasion of privacy or could be misconstrued as exciting and productive of bad ends when they are not. You obviously haven’t tasted even a hint of how the press can distort a story for “eyeballs”.

    Wait 15-20 years and I’m sure the full text of their correspondence will be available to the eyes of those looking for excitement or titillation from the media. In the meantime, I personally want this investigation in more sober, adult hands. I don’t see any missing white women in this story. But I am aware that the lurid element has excited the tabloid crowd around Assange .

    And they say women love gossip!

  62. 62
    Michael Finn says:

    I am not a fan of Greenwald when he tries to go outside narrative. He called asperger syndrome a “fashionable disease” to continue his attack on Lamo. He refuses to apologize for that. He has fantastic critical thinking ability but his compassion is lacking in those he doesn’t understand.

    Lamo’s responses in the media doesn’t show a complete asshole, it shows somebody completely over their head right now. Instead of realizing that, Mr. Greenwald goes to the worst conclusion.

    When it comes to the law, I will always be fan of his.

  63. 63
    Michael Finn says:

    I am not a fan of Greenwald when he tries to go outside narrative. He called asperger syndrome a “fashionable disease” to continue his attack on Lamo. He refuses to apologize for that. He has fantastic critical thinking ability but his compassion is lacking in those he doesn’t understand.

    Lamo’s responses in the media doesn’t show a complete asshole, it shows somebody completely over their head right now. Instead of realizing that, Mr. Greenwald goes to the worst conclusion.

    When it comes to the law, I will always be fan of his.

  64. 64
    300baud says:

    @John – A Motley Moose:

    This isn’t a freedom of information issue. Wired has every right to handle this any way they desire.

    Has anybody suggested that Wired isn’t within their legal rights? Because as far as I can tell, you’re addressing a big ol’ straw man there.

    What Greenwald is saying is that they’re shitty journalists for not publishing important facts material to a major story without some justification. That seems reasonable. There are a number of circumstances where journalists should, or at least can, withhold information, but it’s not obvious any of them apply here.

  65. 65
    tatere says:

    i would bet a really good donut that somewhere in here is Conde Nast’s legal department having some kind of liability paranoia. it doesn’t have to make sense, it just has to alarm someone who can say No. now it may start to become legal vs marketing, worried about The Brand and all. be curious to hear the rumors from the inside.

  66. 66
    Anne Laurie says:

    @Michael Finn: __

    Lamo’s responses in the media doesn’t show a complete asshole, it shows somebody completely over their head right now. Instead of realizing that, Mr. Greenwald goes to the worst conclusion.

    To be fair (not least to the Aspies), it’s possible that Lamo is both “a complete asshole” and “over [his] head right now”. Neither condition would negate the possibility that Lamo had been used, with or without his consent, by the Feds to trick Manning into “confessing” a business relationship with Wikileaks/Assange that might or might not actually exist. (If I tell you, here on a public blog, that I am having a sexual relationship with Angelina Jolie, is Brad Pitt going to be able to use my “confession” in a divorce petition? Not hardly. And that’s even before the jury gets a good look at me, since I am totally not Angie’s type.)

    But your defense of Lamo is entirely beside the point of Greenwald’s argument, which is that Kevin Poulsen is comitting a breach of journalistic ethics by withholding the Lamo/Manning transcripts while simultaneously insisting that “the facts” only Poulsen can access prove that Manning burned that notorious thumbdrive at the explicit direction of Julian Assange.

    If Poulsen, as some of Poulsen’s defenders believe, is only doing this because he’s been threatened (captured) by nefarious NSA agents, presumably he can only be grateful for the publicity.

  67. 67

    @300baud: I know what Greenwald is saying. He’s complaining about non-disclosure about the relationship between the main actors and he’s upset that the raw logs haven’t been released. Since the complaint is about not knowing what is in the logs then claiming there are “important facts” in the material is pure speculation.

    Journalists hold information all the time, e.g., JFK’s affairs. They print only a fraction of the information they come across. They pick and choose what to publish. I’ll reiterate – Greenwald knows the information is out there. Others have published parts of it. He should do the same, if that’s what he wants to see happen.

    I’m not all that vested in this issue. My stance is that whoever has the information should be given the right to make their own editorial decisions.

  68. 68
    DPirate says:

    The Manning Chats?

    What is this distraction for?

  69. 69
    crack says:

    Boing Boing got some access to the chat logs and apparently there was some part of it that indicated Manning was having gender identity issues. It could be that some of the logs deal with some private stuff that would do nothing but move the debate in an ugly direction.

  70. 70
    Jack Parsons says:

    Maybe some of you were right about Wired, that it is basically People magazine for the online set, and I should find better sources in the future.

    Perfect. I helped build today’s interTubez- haven’t read Wired in 10 years.

Comments are closed.