SocraticGadfly: 12/1/19 - 12/8/19

December 06, 2019

Take this job and shove it

We've all been in crappy jobs from time to time, and per the title of this post, those of us old enough to know who Johnny Paycheck is know what to sing.

If you DON'T know who Johnny Paycheck is, per the header, let me help:



Yes, yes, David Allen Coe wrote the piece, and sang it too, but it's Paycheck's theme. Plus, he's got the name for the song.

From time to time, as gleaned from email listings at Indeed, Idealist, LinkedIn, etc., I've posted to Twitter what I will call "job descriptions translated" or similar.

In other words, behind the flowery, turd-polishing description crafted by some HR flunkies, my take on what's the job really about.

Then I figured, why confine that to Twitter?

So, here goes.
OK, on to the next:
And, the third?

No translating, just commentary, on this baby, complete with screengrab:
"Paid training"? Noo......



December 05, 2019

The smugness of Apple's iCult

I've run into it on Facebook, with a friend or friends, when told that iPhones spy on you just like Androids, shrug it off. (Can't tell you more, as I don't post to public.)

And, they do. Maybe not as much as Androids, but they do.

And yet there’s no question that, by putting computers in our pockets, Apple ushered in the surveillance age. Researchers have found that iPhones send a steady stream of personal data to third parties, much as Android phones do. The company is also a pioneer in Bluetooth beacons, tiny devices used by retailers which glean data from phones as people move about in public spaces. Apple’s use of Chinese subcontractors has led to speculation that the company’s products are at risk of being compromised by the Chinese government—a prospect that flies in the face of Apple’s reputation for being virtually unhackable. In August, Google researchers exposed a large-scale iPhone breach that, according to anonymous sources who spoke with the Web site Tech Crunch, was initiated by the Chinese government in order to surveil Uighurs. Google’s blog post about the incident, which failed to mention that Android phones had also been affected, described “mass exploitation” of iPhones. In a tersely worded response, Apple criticized Google for “stoking fear among all iPhone users that their devices had been compromised. This was never the case.”
If that's not enough, more here from the WaPost.

And (update, Jan. 21) Apple CAVED to the FBI in deciding not to encrypt cloud-backup information. But a commenter at Schneier on Security claims the Reuters piece is all wet. Given that the link is from an iCult site, why should I believe it? Many of the commenters at Bruce's piece are worth reading more, though. Most harsh up the Eff Bee Eye. A few have a bit of skepticism for Apple. Parabarbarian and Alejandro follow Eric of the "all wet" link in saying it was dum fuk iUsers that forced Apple to abandon this. Sounds like Steve Jobs for blaming users for fucking up the antenna on the one model of iPhone.

Now, Firefox has a version for mobile. And, it fits Apple's iOS as well as Android. Might save you from those more than 5,000 trackers a week that the WaPost columnist had.

That raises other issues.

The biggie is that, yes, iPhones are hackable. Apple computers, before the upgrade to OS X, were just about totally nonhackable. They're more hackable today, but because they have a small market share, and thus it's tough for them to spread Apple-based viruses, aren't worth hacking.

iDevices? Different story. The iPhone has a substantial market share. So does the iPad. So, it's worth hacking Mac's mobile OS.

Now? A reminder that behind the progressive turd polishing, Apple, with its planned obsolescence and breathlessly pushed upgrades, is bad for the environment, too. Lithium is the biggie, and the one that comes first to mind, but other metals are also a problem. As the coup in Bolivia and ongoing civil war in Congo show, this planned obsolescence also takes a human social and cultural toll.

This brings up yet other issues.

One is how much people are tethered to smartphones. All the articles above reflect that.

Another is how much they want to do with that smartphone. And Big Biz, and most Net browsers and the companies behind them, know that people will "pay" for lazy convenience.

Update: Cory Doctorow has a good piece about the issues I list and more. As with me, his angle is that Apple isn't WORSE than Facebook, Google or other tech companies, or than other product companies that have moved manufacturing to China, but it IS even more hypocritical than them.

And so are its cultist fanbois.

==

Update, Aug. 21, 2020: The myth of Apple protecting all your privacy rights takes another blow with revelation it once worked on a government-snoops friendly iPod.

December 04, 2019

Once more, I present the thin-skinned
conspiracy theorists of Consortium News

Dunno who's running its Twitter feed, but after two years of @-ing it from time to time, I actually got a response to this Dec. 1, after visiting its website for the first time in a few months:
And from that? We were off to the races, until Consortium News did a selective exit.
I of course couldn't let that go, so:
And, of course, to remind the readership of just what I'm talking about, let me link to that.

Right here.

And note that CN has never, ever, cleaned up this Patrick Lawrence mess, even though The Nation DID clean up  Lawrence's mess. (CN has actually run more pieces by Lawrence.)

CN's Twitter Whisperer then said:
Nope. No lie. Rather:

I didn't expect to get any more response after that.

And didn't.

Crickets again, on both the being blocked and on the Forensicator bullshit. Waited more than 12 hours, overnight, just in case whoever's running the account had checked out.

So, the next morning, I Tweeted the Forensicator link, then one other, noted in the next paragraph.

The background is that I deblogrolled Consortium News 18 months ago. The reasons why are described in detail here, but are above all it going downhill after Robert Parry's death, above all with the addition of Caitlyn Johnstone. I also note that I didn't know Bob himself gave plenty of signs of being a JFK conspiracy theorist, and definitely gullible about the myths of Camelot.

As for "Russiagate"? Like Aaron Maté and others, CN by early 2018, mainly driven by Ray McGovern, was clearly going down the road of twosiderism, which I noted four months before the de-blogrolling.

Update, Dec. 9, 2020: The fact that RNC computers as well as DNC ones were hacked undercuts the Seth Rich leaker thing right there. Unfortunately, for a while, I listened too much to bullshit artists like Aaron Maté (you ARE, on this, Aaron, shut up!) who said "cloud computing" and "mirrors" etc. were no substitute for the real thing. Well, when you use cloud servers, Aaron, that IS the real thing. If you're that much of a gasligher, you too can go fuck yourself along with Ty Clevenger. If you're that much of an idiot, again, shut up. Ditto for anybody else repeating that nonsense.

Dropping by once every month or two has led me to see that CN, on a reasonably generous estimate, has about one-third decent to good posts, one-third meh, and one-third crap. And, since I found a place like LobeLog that has a far broader reach on general foreign policy issues, though not diving as much into intelligence establishment issues, that covers half of CN's good stuff or more? I don't really miss it.

As part of that, while not technically conspiracy theorizing, every CN piece about presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard is analysis-free hagiography.

Also, going yet more downhill recently, 20 monthsafter adding Caitlyn Johnstone? Elizabeth Lea Vos of Petulant Media, a feeder of the Forensicator bullshit, is a contributor there. And, since that is a conspiracy theory ...

And contra CN's Twitter Whisperer, everybody who knows anything knows that the Forensicator bullshit, and the Adam Carter behind it, is connected to Seth Rich conspiracy thinking. So, CN, maybe you didn't directly report it. Maybe you interviewed Isakoff (though you've not given him space to write on there, have you? Oopsssss...) but you haven't reputiated, or cleaned up after, Patrick Lawrence, unlike The Nation, and you have, indirectly, thus perpetuated the Seth Rich conspiracy theory.

And?

YOU KNOW THAT. Somewhere, if only in Bob's son's or whoever's unconscious.

Finally, CN and fanbois? As I told the Twitter Whisperer, I know the difference between a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory. Better than Bob laid it in his piece, since he's a JFK conspiracy theorist.

So, to summarize and swing a full meat-axe? CN lies directly, then further lies by omission and by editorialese (the journalistic equivalent of legalese).

CN's Twitter Whisperer (maybe Vos is running that?) claims it doesn't run conspiracy theories. Refudiation:

  • Forensicator;
  • Bob Parry himself with JFK.
Claims it doesn't promote Seth Rich conspiracy theorizing. Indirect refutation:
  • Forensicator tied to Seth Rich conspiracy theorizing; 
  • Never, in its Assange writing, pointing out him as the apparent first promoter of it.
And, so, continues to go downhill.

Texas Progressives, stuffed with food,
offer up a post-holidays Roundup

This outpost of Texas Progressives was grateful for Thanksgiving while being unsure whether the latest possible date of the holiday is good or bad vis a vis Black Friday capitalism. It's good that it comes later, but it's bad that the later date means a harder sell from the capitalists.

Leaving readers to ponder that phenomenon, let's dive in. (But first, a moment of silence for the turkeyed campaign of Kamala is a Cop.)

Pigging out on Texana

Yes, let's talk pork, before we talk more birds.

Pig Stand makes its last stand in San Antonio, as the original drive-in restaurant chain dies down to one site.

Wild hogs can and do kill, and just did so again in Anahuac.

And, they also "play through" on the back nine, according to the Observer's Strangest State.

H/t Brains for a couple of the links inspiring the thematic section


Sports

Instead of talking turkey, Socratic Gadfly talked Redbirds, as in Cardinals. He first said the Birds need to get a starting pitcher, then called out Post-Dispatch columnist Derrick Goold for drinking management Kool-Aid.


Texas politics

Like an oily oil slick, Smokey Joe Barton is back, and shamelessly telling us his part in wrecking world climate.

Blood from stones and turnips doesn't compare to fines and fees from poor criminals. Michael Barajas has the details.


Texas politics, Trib-norance division

J. Edward Moreno talks about the "Texodus" of GOP Congresscritters without ever mentioning the Newt-led cap on committee chair/ranking member term limits.

Ross Ramsey claims there is no middle in Texas politics. Rather, there is no left.  And, it's people like Ross in particular, leading the Trib, and the Trib and other state papers, that make it that way.

With stuff like this, is it any wonder I think its 10th anniversary huzzahing is overdone?


Texana

Texas Monthly's new web roundup piece is about how the cowboy boot is made for Texaning.

And, it's got Texana on the other side of the Sabine, including tamale talk in time for the holidays.

If you must buy crap (not tamales), TM has its Texana holiday shopping guide.

The Wilks Brothers get hammered by oil, and even more, gas prices in the dumpster. (In turn, this is  part of why many people with gas leases oppose wind farms, which the Dallas Observer was too dumb to know.)


Dallas

Some 45 years ago, Monty Python got its American TV breakthrough in Dallas, of all places. (About a dozen years ago, when "Holy Grail" got a theatrical re-release, I saw it, and heard it in glorious surround sound, at The Inwood.) And, in part to honor the KERA person who made it happen, John Cleese is accepting a comedy award in Dallas tonight.

Stephen Young, for the holidays, offers up Dallas' 10 worst turkeys. Fort Worth Weekly does the same for Cowtown.

Jim Schutze takes a whack at the piñata of charter schools, but winds up, shockingly, not having a real opinion.


Houston

Tony Buzbee appears to be dead in the water in the mayoral runoff.


National

Brains' 2020 update is best summarized by the David Klion Tweet he incorporates, which says of Obama in part: "He considers himself the leader of the party but refuses to lead." Wasn't that Obama as president as well?

December 03, 2019

Top blogging for November:
heavy on baseball and conspiracy thinking

This is a list and quick notes on top blog posts in November by readership. Not all were written in the last month.

In fact, the first, which went viral last month, was about "Could an Iranian bomb LOWER tensions?" It's just a brief piece, with just one link, written before the Quartet of Obama, EU, Russia and China reached the nuclear control deal with Iran. Trump's saber-rattling has brought the idea back to life, as despicable as nuclear weapons in general are.

Numbers 2, 4 and 8 are baseball related. First, I tackle what MLB veterans who missed their shot with the writers should be voted into Cooperstown. Second, I do some baseball alt-history to suggest a possible "real" single-season home run record holder. And at No. 8, I wonder if the St. Louis Cardinals will sign a starting pitcher in free agency while offering my ideas that they should, and who it should be.

Nos 3 and 6 directly, No. 10 indirectly and No. 7 slightly, are all connected to conspiracy thinking. On No. 3, I discuss the difference between conspiracy and conspiracy theory. At No. 6, I talk about Green Party presidential candidate Howie Hawkins battling conspiracy theory nutters in the party. In No. 10, I look at the ironic reality of Jackie Kennedy's Camelot legend — a legend that of course fueled conspiracy theories. In No. 7, I offer my hot take on 2012/16 Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein saying she's down with conspiracy theorist Jesse Ventura seeking the Green presidential nomination along with antivaxxer RFK Jr as Veep.

No. 5? My old longform profile of old frenemy (if that?) on Twitter, the late Chris Chopin, aka Actual Flatticus, or Actual Flatus, is trending again, I think because of his birthday anniversary. (And, for all his Twitter bromancers, if you do a Google search under his real name, and limit results to the past year, you get just one page of hits.)

No. 9? My calling out many fellow leftists for uncritically accepting as legitimate former Bolivian President Evo Morales' run for an unconstitutional additional term.

No, really, Dale Murphy is not a HOFer

Yes, the Modern Era contingent of Cooperstown's Veterans Committee selected him as a HOF nominee, but — Dale Murphy is not a HOFer. Been down this road before, Tomahawk Choppers. Less than 50 WAR, and 16 WAA. As for his back-to-back MVPs the fanbois tout? In 1982, he was essentially tied for fourth in WAR. In 1983, he was essentially in a six-way tie for first.

And, not counting alleged roiders and those not yet eligible? Here's two other non-HOFers who have won two MVPs:
Juan Gonzales
Roger Maris
That said, Juan Gone was totally undeserving both times.
Maris even won back to back, like the Murph. Maris, though, was outright first in his first win, in 1960. He and Juan Gone are both around 40 WAR. Less than 10 WAR behind the Murph.

As for those MVP years?

Again, in 1982, he was essentially tied for fourth in WAR. In 1983, he was essentially in a six-way tie for first.

Gary Carter (an actual HOFer) got hosed in 1982; had he rightfully won the MVP, he might not have needed six shots to get in the Hall. (Carter got semi-hosed in 1984; by WAR, Ryan Sandberg deserved his crown, but Carter, second in WAR, was only 14th in voting. I look further down his page, and Carter is SECOND in career JAWS for catchers and STILL took six votes to get in.)

And, one of the Fansided nutters (and worse, Fanbois in comments) drinks and pours the Kool-Aid big time.

Seriously, if you're pulling up HOF MANAGERS Miller Huggins and John McGraw's players' WAR (which is indeed lower than the Murph's) to cite this as proof he belong in the Hall? You forgot Tony La Russa. And Red Schoendienst and Hughie Jennings arguably went in as player-manager combos.

And, you're also a total homer if you're going to point to the lower career WAR of the injury-shortened spans of Dizzy Dean and Roy Campanella. Or the segregation-shortened career of, say, Monte Irvin, unmentioned by them. (Monte's best year, by WAR, slightly edged the Murph.)

But, but, the Murph also won five Gold Gloves.

And had negative dWAR in three of those, being a poster child for Fielding Bible awards to come along.

He seems close, though, right?

Let's look at the Murph's stats.
                                                                     
R         H  2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB  CS  BB   SO   BA  OBP  SLG  OPS OPS+
17       40   9  1   4   14   1   1   2   27 .288 .308 .453 .761  111
27       62  10  3   4   29   3   3  10   53 .282 .322 .409 .731  108
75      172  35 10  25  101   8   6  38   89 .308 .357 .541 .898  149
82      168  28 10  13   90  19   7  30   80 .313 .349 .475 .824  133
107     215  44  8  21   88  17  19  58  107 .338 .397 .531 .927  145
102     194  32 12  30  117  20   7  57   92 .334 .394 .585 .979  166
109     193  45  7  25   94  20   4  67  101 .310 .380 .526 .906  140
71      153  31  1  17   79  10   7  25   69 .295 .327 .458 .785  115
29       62  14  3   9   48   6   2   9   25 .258 .287 .454 .742  105
41       66  19  3   6   29   7   5  22   45 .270 .330 .447 .776  113
68      154  29  4  12   69  12   9  28   89 .279 .311 .411 .722   97
73      173  28  0  16   94  11  10  41   89 .285 .328 .410 .738  104
88      198  42  4  34  125   5  13  52   80 .312 .365 .551 .916  149
89      174  31  3  31  116   1   6  56  126 .273 .330 .477 .807  117
77      149  28  0  26   97   7   3  44  104 .253 .311 .433 .744   92
43       97  18  1  12   55   0   1  32   70 .257 .314 .406 .720  103
56      146  27  0  22   97   0   0  38   91 .264 .308 .432 .741  110
71      176  30  3  21   92   4   7  41  102 .289 .330 .451 .781  118
47      120  26  2  11   59   3   3  33   98 .239 .288 .365 .653   81
45      108  22  2  11   56   3   2  29   91 .232 .279 .358 .638   76
2        12   4  0   0    3   0   1   4    7 .333 .400 .444 .844  130
1272   2712 526 75 339 1493 154 113 683 1537 .290 .339 .471 .810  121

Provided by Baseball-Reference.comView Original Table
Generated 12/18/2012.
Nice, solid numbers, eh?

Now, a few of you may be scratching your heads at this point. Those of you really familiar with his stats know they're not his.

No, they're not. They're Dave Parker's numbers.

Here's Murphy's.

                                                                    
R         H  2B 3B  HR  RBI  SB CS  BB   SO   BA  OBP  SLG  OPS OPS+
3        17   6  0   0    9   0  0   7    9 .262 .333 .354 .687   91
5        24   8  1   2   14   0  1   0    8 .316 .316 .526 .842  112
66      120  14  3  23   79  11  7  42  145 .226 .284 .394 .679   80
53      106   7  2  21   57   6  1  38   67 .276 .340 .469 .809  113
98      160  27  2  33   89   9  6  59  133 .281 .349 .510 .858  135
43       91  12  1  13   50  14  5  44   72 .247 .325 .390 .716  100
113     168  23  2  36  109  23 11  93  134 .281 .378 .507 .885  142
131     178  24  4  36  121  30  4  90  110 .302 .393 .540 .933  149
94      176  32  8  36  100  19  7  79  134 .290 .372 .547 .919  149
118     185  32  2  37  111  10  3  90  141 .300 .388 .539 .927  152
89      163  29  7  29   83   7  7  75  141 .265 .347 .477 .824  121
115     167  27  1  44  105  16  6 115  136 .295 .417 .580 .997  157
77      134  35  4  24   77   3  5  74  125 .226 .313 .421 .734  106
60      131  16  0  20   84   3  2  65  142 .228 .306 .361 .667   89
60      138  23  1  24   83   9  3  61  130 .245 .318 .417 .735   99
38       81  14  0  17   55   9  2  41   84 .232 .312 .418 .731   96
22       57   9  1   7   28   0  1  20   46 .266 .328 .416 .744  105
66      137  33  1  18   81   1  0  48   93 .252 .309 .415 .724  103
5        10   1  0   2    7   0  0   1   13 .161 .175 .274 .449   26
1         6   1  0   0    7   0  0   5   15 .143 .224 .167 .391    1
1197   2111 350 39 398 1266 161 68 986 1748 .265 .346 .469 .815  121


Provided by Baseball-Reference.comView Original Table
Generated 12/18/2012.
Just not quite as good as Parker's, are they? The biggie career stat, OPS+, is a virtual tie. Counting stats? Parker's well ahead in most.

But, surely, Murph was affected by injuries in part. And, surely, with 2 MVP awards — shades of Joe Morgan! — he was the more valuable player.

I won't argue there.

Here's the Murph's career number on a few sabermetric stats:
                                  
RAA    WAA RAR  WAR oWAR dWAR oRAR
140   16.3 412 42.6 44.9 -7.6  445

Provided by Baseball-Reference.comView Original Table
Generated 12/18/2012.

And here's Parker's:
                                  
RAA   WAA RAR  WAR oWAR  dWAR oRAR
44    6.7 354 36.3 37.9 -15.5  375

Provided by Baseball-Reference.comView Original Table
Generated 12/18/2012.

So, Murph WAS more valuable, yes. But, enough more valuable, not only in comparison to Parker but the HOF hurdle, to offset a relatively short career, and various injuries, and get in?

I say no. (And Murphy's injury issues weren't that serious, anyway.)

Murph never passed the smell test, and WAA, which I'm seeing more and more as a better marker than WAR, indicates that. Murphy was under 20 WAA. In general, IMO, if your WAA is less than half of your WAR, you have a weak case. And, that's on top of the weak case on WAR.

Let's look at WAR again vs. Diz and Campy. Murph never broke 7 WAR. Campy did twice as a catcher, playing fewer games per year. Diz did three times as a pitcher.

Otherwise? Never led the league in WAR. Only was in the top 10 five times among position players.

The claim that he played on bad teams? The 1980-84 Braves were all solid. 1982 was a division title winner. Besides, WAR is predicated on individual achievement. Mike Trout turns in 9 and 10 WAR years even as the Angels fail to make the playoffs. (From his first full season on, except injury-shortened 2017, EVERY Trout season is as good or better than Murphy's BEST season.)

Note: Here's the 16 committee members who will vote Dec. 7 on this year's veterans' class.

December 02, 2019

Texas Trib turns 10; cause for joy? Maybe, maybe not (totally)

Well, maybe. It depends on what metrics and how you analyze them, as we look at Evan Smith's hoorah piece.

OK, first, financials.

$10 million intake and $9.7 million expenses. Yes, you're in the black.

At 3 percent.

A total haul of $76 million over that decade?

How much of that haul is from your "sponsors" in what Jim Moore five years ago called pay-to-play journalism, as I blogged here? Care to open your books all the way, Evan? I didn't think so. Remember, at the same time, Moore called you out for lack of transparency, as well. (I have a more detailed analysis below.)

And, how much of your haul over the years is from advertorial pieces? Easier to do that, maybe, when you have "sponsors."
Ten years in, we still consult at no cost with any wide-eyed, big-hearted social entrepreneurs who want advice and insight on how to create an operation like ours from scratch.
I can consult like that, too, also for free.

"Dear Salt Lake City Tribune, as you now enter the nonprofit world, getcha a bunch of fucking money from big corporations. List them by name to be ethical, but ... don't let that actually bother if you shade your writing their way."

There ya go!

What Evan won't tell you, in addition, is that if that money comes from a foundation, attached to it are foundation terms of use and other strings.

Does that have an effect?

Arguably yes.

Especially when it comes to talking Earl, which the Trib don't have much of in Utah, compared to the Black Gold, the Texas Tea, and the refining thereof in Texas. The Trib has always been light in the loafers about calling Big Oil to account, let alone following fellow light-in-the-loafers Politico to write something about climate change legal liabilities. I noted that at its 3-year mark, with this piece.

Reaching more than 2 million per month on various platforms? Does that include, or not, the New York Times website on cross-produced stories carried at both places?

Speaking of separate platforms and sponsored journalism, running Trib Talk pieces separately is now being killed. That would, therefore, not be a success. How clearly they'll be distinguished in the future, who knows?

About 80 full time and part time employees? Sounds good, as others still gut. But how many are FT and how many PT?

Oh, and per that same environmental piece link, Evan, you were making more than $300 large 7 years ago. Care to tell us what the current haul is? Also within that link, Editor and Publisher had other issues to raise, like Ross Ramsey's cozy past relationship with John Sharp when comptroller, especially since the Aggies that Sharp now runs are an official "partner."

I'm surprised that Evan hasn't branched Trib Talk into a TED Trib Talk channel. He must be slipping.

Finally, given ProPublica's recently announced partnership with the Trib on investigative journalism, what happens when serious dirt gets found on a Trib sponsor?

At least Smith, in an interview with Texas Monthly, admits he got lucky. He refers to livestreaming Wendy Davis and her pink shoes inside the pink dome in 2013.

Sadly, Poynter can only see fit to write a puff piece.

I shouldn't totally bitch on Poynter. It does tell us what Evan didn't — where the money comes from:
Its diverse revenue stream, according to a 2018 financial report, is 25% from foundations, 24% from individuals, 19% from website sponsorship, 18% from events, 10% from membership. 5% is “earned.”
OK. So Poynter doesn't have a breakout of income level of the individuals. Nor $$$ amounts to attend events. Nor does it tell us that at places like The Atlantic, Washington Post and elsewhere, "events" have led to ethical conundrums — conundrums enough for one of said places to generally drop the "events."

Well, it SHOULD have led to ethical conundrums. In reality, Atlantic tut-tutted the people who were tut-tutting the WaPost's soirees, and this was all so it could turd-polish its own such events. This was a full decade ago, meaning that Atlantic gave Evan cover to do this at the Trib.

So, less ethical than the WaPost. Got it. But, in the same slime mold realm as The Atlantic, which can go fucking paywall itself. 

Meanwhile, the Trib is losing its top editor.

Kuff, as part of last week's Texas Progressives roundup, offered a Twitter link salute to Emily Ramshaw (and Amanda Zamora) all the best in their new media venture.

I added a bit to it ... starting with:

as they go bowling for pink-themed sponsorship dollar or whatever. No, seriously, they may not be doing that, since their new gig isn't the Texas Tribune. But, Ramshaw jumped from the Snooze to Trib because, per Robert Wilonsky,  because she "didn't want to go down with a sinking ship." No, she was willing to close one eye (maybe not both) at pay-to-play journalism and its problems.

But maybe they will be doing that? And I still don't get how the hell Ramshaw got from Focus Daily News to the Trib's top editor spot. Or even to her level at the Snooze. Oh, I do now. Family background, which gave her exposure, and even privilege, per this story. (I also get why Focus Daily News publisher Marlon Hanson said she was going places.)

Or to put it another way? Her wedding was written up in the New York Times. No, really.

That said, Robert Wilonsky, before HE jumped the Observer ship to jump the Snooze shark, slightly p'wned her and very much did the Trib, with this brief.

==

Update: Evan wants to help local news, he says. And he's starting an incubator lab or whatever. And, his primary funding? From Hucksterman, the last person in the world to actually help local news.

Sadly, Poynter can only see fit to write a puff piece.

I shouldn't totally bitch on Poynter. It does tell us what Evan didn't — where the money comes from:

Its diverse revenue stream, according to a 2018 financial report, is 25% from foundations, 24% from individuals, 19% from website sponsorship, 18% from events, 10% from membership. 5% is “earned.”
OK. So Poynter doesn't have a breakout of income level of the individuals. Nor $$$ amounts to attend events. Nor does it tell us that at places like The Atlantic, Washington Post and elsewhere, "events" have led to ethical conundrums — conundrums enough for said places to generally drop the "events."

Well, it SHOULD have led to ethical conundrums. In reality, Atlantic tut-tutted the people who were tut-tutting the WaPost's soirees, and this was all so it could turd-polish its own such events. This was a full decade ago, meaning that Atlantic gave Evan cover to do this at the Trib.