The best privacy journalist of our time, @JuliaAngwin, was ousted in a coup from the new news organization she created. Most of the staff quit in protest. It’s an awful situation that will be a big test for the main funder, @craignewmark. https://t.co/m6lbxz7brD
— Walt Mossberg (@waltmossberg) April 24, 2019
I am taking this very seriously. More to come… pic.twitter.com/dXQ6L7BffD
— craig newmark (@craignewmark) April 24, 2019
While Newmark’s tweet was on behalf of all the funders mentioned, several foundations sent out their own additional messages.
. @FordFoundation is a funder of the Markup. We’re fully aligned with our fellow funders – this is a time to regroup. We will find a way to advance the original mission and vision. See our statement: pic.twitter.com/5mwNwfrjDT
— Lori McGlinchey (@macvie) April 24, 2019
W/ @craignewmark and others, "We remain committed to the mission of The Markup which is to focus on data-driven journalism covering the ethics and impact of technology on society. At this time, we believe it is necessary to reassess our support and we are taking steps to do so." pic.twitter.com/oQOv3TqbIC
— JenniferPreston (@JenniferPreston) April 24, 2019
— MacArthur Foundation (@macfound) April 24, 2019
The Markup was born to investigate the societal impact of algorithms through data-centered journalism, building on award-winning work that Angwin did at ProPublica. “I think journalism needs a new guiding light, a new philosophical approach, and I think that approach should be the scientific method,” Angwin told my colleague Christine Schmidt last year. Angwin now argues that Sue Gardner, the third Markup cofounder along with Jeff Larson, wanted to push The Markup toward a decidedly non-scientific approach, taking on more of an anti-big-tech-advocacy role and publishing “takes” like “Facebook is a dumpster fire.”Our statement on recent developments at the Markup (@team_markup), a new data-driven journalism startup. pic.twitter.com/n9U06BKokg
— Open Society Foundations (@OpenSociety) April 24, 2019
After a vague statement Tuesday that didn’t even mention the firing, the remaining Markup staff voiced their side of the story last night in a Medium post by Larson. He argues that Angwin was a bad boss who was responsible for the site’s slow rollout and refused to accept either help with her job or a shift to another role.
Over a period of many months, though, it became clear that The Markup did not have the right leadership structure in place to be successful. It has been reported that Julia’s departure was abrupt and a surprise, and that there was “no discussion” of a new role. That is not true. As early as December 21st, we started a conversation — Sue Gardner, Julia and I — about crafting a different role for Julia that would keep her as a central part of The Markup. As a co-Founder and talented journalist, we wanted Julia to remain the public face and voice of the institution, and to assume a role that would put her front and center, driving much of our most important journalism.
We kicked around a lot of ideas together about what to do: one of us could become investigative lead. We could recruit an experienced Editor in Chief from outside the organization. Sue and I were totally willing to craft any role that would work for Julia, that would be a fit for her considerable talent, and that would give us a leadership structure that played to our strengths and was the best structure moving forward…
We fundamentally believe that HR issues should remain private, and so we didn’t want to comment on Julia’s departure, because it’s an internal personnel matter. We believe saying nothing is the most respectful and kindest approach. We still believe that, and I am still reluctant to say more. But I recognize the need to set the record straight.
The Markup had planned to launch early in 2019. At that time, we were expecting to have an editorial staff of 24. But by late 2018 it was clear that we had fallen far, far behind. Hiring was slow. Recruitment was slow. Even as of this month, we didn’t have stories banked. We didn’t have editorial processes in place to accept and develop pieces. We hadn’t developed areas of coverage. We still lacked an editorial value proposition. We were very far behind.
Both Julia and I, having not run newsrooms at this level, were asked to participate in management training and coaching. Recognizing my own shortcomings, I jumped at the opportunity. Julia refused, and was not interested in any of the support offered, and did not want any feedback.
Finally, there were other management and leadership issues at play, that led us to have a breakdown in trust between the three of us as co-founders. Again, it’s not my place to lay that bare. And I won’t. But where it left us was in a position where Julia refused to discuss any role other than Editor in Chief, and would not consider any other configuration. So unfortunately we made the decision to remove her from that role.
Angwin got to respond this morning during a live podcast interview with Recode’s Kara Swisher.
.@JuliaAngwin suggests to @karaswisher that one of the reasons The Markup wanted to take a harsher position on tech is that it’s easier to raise money for a nonprofit advocacy group that an ostensibly objective one pic.twitter.com/EwF6noBh2A
— Mollie Leavitt (@mollie_leavitt) April 25, 2019
“They wanted to make me take a ‘personality test.’ I refused.” says @JuliaAngwin of her time at @team_markup pic.twitter.com/ZcOgiz8i9a
— Benjamin Pauker (@benpauker) April 25, 2019
.@JuliaAngwin on co-founder Jeff Larson's memo and funder @craignewmark’s reaction: I have to brush up on my coup literature.“Somebody told me, ‘the coup’s already happened. This is the counter-coup.’” #RecodeDecodeLive
— Recode (@Recode) April 25, 2019
.@JuliaAngwin on leaving @team_markup: [Her partners] weren’t aligned on the vision as much as she thought. Co-founder Sue Gardner was taking a much more anti-tech position than she was. “I’m known for being skeptical about tech, but I’m a reporter. I go in with the facts.”
— Recode (@Recode) April 25, 2019
“Were not lacking right now in opinions about tech, I thought we could bring another piece to the table” –@JuliaAngwin
— Mollie Leavitt (@mollie_leavitt) April 25, 2019
.@karaswisher Why were you fired?@JuliaAngwin: I don’t know. Sue took me aside in January with Jeff [Larson], she said you’re not suited to be editor-in-chief, her reasons were “you don’t like meetings.” #RecodeDecodeLive
— Recode (@Recode) April 25, 2019
.@JuliaAngwin on raising money for advocacy news vs. investigative news:
I imagine people donate to causes. But from my experience, it undermines your findings when you go in with an agenda. You have to be willing to go where the data leads you. #RecodeDecodeLive— Recode (@Recode) April 25, 2019
At least judging by reactions to Larson’s piece on Media Twitter, it does not appear that Markup management’s reasoning has satisfied everyone.
So you were running behind schedule, she skipped a management training, and she doesn’t like meetings. This is why you decided to torch your publication?
— Russell Brandom (@russellbrandom) April 24, 2019
For anyone who knows how brilliant, generous, and thoughtful @JuliaAngwin is, the notion that she was fired because she wouldn’t “accept feedback and training” is nearly inconceivable. This is profoundly sad. https://t.co/hIXnpWuzDl https://t.co/WY9A9zwVtv
— Rachel Levinson-Waldman (@RachelBLevinson) April 24, 2019
Reading @tnejefflarson’s explanation (https://t.co/SENwg4e18S) it strikes me that if @JuliaAngwin were a terrible manager, which is what he’s basically saying, then 5 out of 7 staffers would have cheered, rather than quit. https://t.co/CLhc8EFEdQ
— Dan Froomkin (@froomkin) April 24, 2019
Pro tip to Jeff Larson, since I have much experience running tech journalism goat rodeos: Wildly defensive memos should remain in the draft folder, because — like they say — your friends don’t need it and your enemies will not believe you anyway. https://t.co/rgnCBUexB8
— Kara Swisher (@karaswisher) April 25, 2019
And it’s worth remembering that the statement signed by all of The Markup’s editorial staff — five of whom resigned over Angwin’s ouster — specifically rejected the idea that she was a bad boss: “During our time here, we have benefited from her professional management style, and her effectiveness as both a manager and an editor…Julia has kept us on track for launch, run effective and efficient meetings, and had her finger on the pulse of our various stories and projects, all while doing the grunt work required to build a stable and collaborative newsroom.”
The editorial team of @team_markup has signed a statement of unequivocal support for our Editor in Chief, @JuliaAngwin: pic.twitter.com/aTRsmM6oeo
— The Real Team Markup (@MarkupReal) April 23, 2019
The Markup had raised $23 million (with $20 million of that coming from Newmark), and launch was slated for this summer.
Angwin — buoyed by a public statement of support that had been signed by more than 140 academics, journalists, policymakers, and others as of Thursday morning — took to the podcast circuit to stress that her vision for a site like The Markup remains. “I want this team and I want this mission, and I want to build this,” she told CNN’s Brian Stelter on his Reliable Sources podcast. “I don’t quite know the mechanics of how this works, but I can tell you my vision is exactly the same.” (The podcast episode is here.)
This is a good question. Because The Markup had not yet obtained 501c3 status we were in a bit of a legal gray area.
As more newsrooms go nonprofit, this period when there is little governance oversight is something that more orgs will have to grapple with. https://t.co/TZb23zUqEY
— Julia Angwin (@JuliaAngwin) April 24, 2019
When I talked to @JuliaAngwin about the Markup last fall, we spent a bunch of time talking about how she had insulated herself from her funders. I never thought to ask about co-founders. https://t.co/KxthNXcE3V pic.twitter.com/iyzwqPIU8A
— Peter Kafka (@pkafka) April 23, 2019