Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

More Cuts Coming to Gannett

If you work at a newspaper, then this is probably bad news.  

More cuts are coming. Reed says that by the end of Q1 (March 31), Gannett will have made cuts that add up to “over $60 million in annualized savings.” By the end of 2020, the company’s target is to be more than halfway to its $300 million savings goal.

That likely means two things: It’s probably safe to bet on some layoffs between now and the end of March. And whatever cuts have been done by then, they’ll probably represent only about 40 percent of the total cuts you can expect by end of year.

 

What Part of "Never" don't you understand?

I've pointed out that the Arizona Republic's position of "Conservative Columnist" is vacant.  Bob Robb has held the position for 30 years and uses the space to discuss arcane economic policies--and to tell people how smart his is*.  For all of his jargon and pomposity, Robb's arguments are usually sound so I was surprised that he committed this classic fallacy.  See if you catch it.  

Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs recently wrote a peculiar column for KTAR.com.

In it, he denounces, with equal disdain, Never-Trumpers and those who want to move the country in a socialist direction.

“Never-Trumpers” is a coinage of Trumpteers supposedly to describe those leaning to the right who will never vote for Donald Trump.

There are vanishingly few true Never-Trumpers. But there are a reasonable number of conservatives and right-leaning independents who really don’t like Trump. More accurate to call them Don’t-Like-Trumpers.

This is called the Straw Man Fallacy.  I've written that the Straw Man is the Most Satisfying Fallacy.  Bob Robb didn't rebut Andy Biggs' argument.  Robb REWROTE the argument and then defeated his own fantasy version of what he claims Biggs said.  I'm sure that this was deeply satisfying.  

Biggs expressed his disdain for "Never Trumpers".  We've seen examples....Jeff Flake, Phil Boas, Bill Kristol...who will NEVER back Trump.  

What did Robb write?  Robb conceded that there are "vanishingly few" Never Trumpers.  That concession defeats Robb's entire argument.  

Here's the headline of Robb's column. 

Why would Rep. Andy Biggs attack the Arizona voters Donald Trump needs?

But why does Trump need group of "vanishingly few" voters?  And why does it hurt if Biggs "attacks" a small group who--by definition--will NEVER vote for him.

Robb's premise is absurd on its face.  So Robb had to rewrite Biggs argument.  Robb claims that Biggs is "attacking" a reasonable number of conservatives and right-leaning independents who really don’t like Trump. More accurate to call them Don’t-Like-Trumpers.

"More accurate to call them..."  

That's a straw man.  The "Don't like Trumpers" are not the group that Andy Biggs was discussing and it's not the argument that Andy Biggs was making.  It's the argument that Bob Robb WANTS to rebut.  So Robb simply rewrites Biggs' argument and then rebuts it.

I'm getting used to Robb's preening and his droning on about Quantitative Easing and the role of the Bundesbank, but I have come to expect solid analysis and high-quality writing.  If this fallacy-riddled poorly reasoned column is part of Robb's future then there is no hope.  The position is worse than vacant.  It's being filled by a pompous technocrat--who can't make a decent argument.  

  

Footnote:  I'm not opposed to writers telling us how smart they are.  In fact, I was perusing one of my copies of Voltaire in my solarium when I realized...but I digress.  

However, in this column Robb's pompous attitude interferes with his writing and weakens his argument.   

For example Biggs did a good job with this sentence.  

For them, it isn’t about good policy, or aligning our legislation with our values, as much as it is about avoiding personal animus in a stiff, Victorian sort of way.

"Stiff, Victorian sort of way."  

That's excellent.  You can picture Downton Abbey with everyone (OK, just the men) in the parlor sipping Brandy and opining on the issues of the day.  

Here's Robb's take on that metaphor.

In the first place, the politics of Victorian England were far from tame. They featured a bitter rivalry between Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone that frequently broke out into searing public commentary.

Really Bob?  Biggs' metaphor was excellent and uses a classic depiction of the Victorian age without being overly haughty or pedantic.  Robb used it as an excuse to demonstrate that he as read a biography of William Gladstone--which is haughty and pedantic.  

I can handle Robb digressing into arcane economic theory.  I can tolerate him being a technocrat.  I may even forgive him for occasionally making a fallacious argument.  

But I'm not going to be able to read his columns if he becomes completely insufferable.  And he needs me to read his columns that's because his readers--not unlike the Never Trumpers--are, as they say, "Vanishingly Few."

 

Fundamentally Dishonest

Here's Why Organizations Fail

The Republic is no longer going to endorse candidates.  

Phil Boas and Greg Burton have crafted a lofty piece about their decision, but there's a hint at the real answer in this paragraph. 

The Republic angered a lot of our readers with that endorsement, but we never backed down. We stand by it today. However, we also know we will never see the likes of that moment again. Our 2016 endorsement was astonishing because it broke with those 126 years of history and made us national and international news.

Here's an example of that coverage.  

Boas and Burton are never Trumpers.  Endorsing Trump now would be a concession that the Republic editorial board's 2016 decision was wrong.  And they can't endorse Bernie or the ultimate nominee because they are....well, you insert an adjective here--crazy, socialist whatever.  I would argue that the case for Trump is better than it was in 2016 and the case for the Democratic nominee is worse than it was in 2016.  So from a public policy perspective, the paper should endorse Trump.  

However, while the REPUBLIC should endorse Trump.  PHIL BOAS can't reverse his previous position.  

So Boas and Burton are abandoning endorsements all together. 

This is a great example of people running a business to meet THEIR needs instead of the businesses needs.  Boas has no ability to back down and he is willing to drastically diminish the power of his paper instead of facing the personal embarrassment of switching positions.  

This is a classic governance problem.   In any institution, top management will eventually get so invested in their own prior decisions that they are willing to tank the entire organization in order to maintain consistency.  That's why companies that change directions have to change the upper management.  

The Republic could continue endorsing candidates.  In fact the endorsement would be easy to write....we don't like Trump's character or his Tweets and we are absolutely opposed to his hard-line stance on immigration.  And while we believe his negotiating style is too abrasive, his economic and foreign policy initiatives have been surprisingly successful. Meanwhile, the current Democratic field has lurched so far left that we can't in good conscience support any of them.  Therefore, we are endorsing Trump.  

See, that's not so difficult.  The Republic could write that.  However, PHIL BOAS can't write that.  He is too personally invested in his 2016 Clinton endorsement and is incapable of making any endorsements that would undercut the rationale of that decision.  

So rather than change positions or retire early, Boas and Burton abandoned endorsements altogether.  

The Republic may not be around much longer...but Boas and Burton will be there until the end.  

 

Layers and Layers of Copy Editors

Newspapers used to employ people who ensured that mistakes like this didn't happen. 

Be Afraid...Be Very Afraid.

Check out this ominous Tweet by the Republic's Elvia Diaz.

 

That guy on the left is Salvador Reza.  He and his group have been threatening Arizona boycotts for as long as I can remember.    Meanwhile, Arizona's economy hums along.

But be warned.  "They aren't kidding."  Seriously.  They aren't kidding this time.  I mean it.  Really. 

Here's an article from 2005.

 

 

Painful, Traumatizing and Perverted

Check out this Tweet from Meghan McCain

 

 

That's right.  It's painful, traumatizing and perverted.  And when overused, it's also boring and a sign of lazy analysis and weak writing.  

The worst example of this painful, traumatizing, perverted, lazy and weak use of John McCain is the Republic's own EJ Montini.

Montini hated the McCains and viciously trolled John and Cindy for years.  Here are a couple classic examples. 

Ouch.  I mean that's some bitter, nasty, pent up stuff.  No wonder McCain refused to talk to anyone from the Republic.  

Now check out how many times the pandering EJ Montini has used McCain as a pawn in his columns since the Senator's death.  Serious question, why does the Republic keep this guy around?  Click here for a larger version.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does the Republic have a Cyber Policy?

I figured out why I haven't seen much from the Republic's  Daniel Gonzalez on Twiter.

 

 

 

Of course, I haven't seen anything from Rebekah Sanders in a while.

 

 

So I've been wondering what the Republic's Cyber policy is.  

Surely they have a Cyber Policy, of course since these guys are still around...maybe not.

 

 

 

 

 

Time for the Annual "Sleeping Giant" story

For the last couple decades the Republic's Daniel Gonzalez has been writing "Sleeping Giant" stories.  Here's the latest breathless iteration.  

Here's a 2010 post in which I first took on this fantasy

Here's what I wrote about Daniel's 2014 version. 

Here's my post about his 2016 fairy tale. 

Or we could go way back to this one from 20 years ago.  

Meanwhile, SB 1070 is the law of the land--and the Legislature is about to send it to voters so that they can enshrine it in the Constitution.    Tucson--yes Tucson--rejected a Sanctuary City proposal by a 70% to 30%.  And did I mention that Donald Trump is President?  

Not even trying to play it straight.

Check out this "news" lede.

WASHINGTON — Hoisting the spoils of victories in California’s hard-fought water wars, President Trump is directing more of the state’s precious water to wealthy farmers and other agriculture interests when he visits their Republican Central Valley stronghold Wednesday.

Sure that's fair.  Trump is "hoisting the spoils of victories" by giving "precious" resources to "wealthy" farmers in a "Republican stronghold."    

Or maybe he realized that bankrupting businesses that employ hundreds of thousands of workers so that fresh water can flow into Sacramento Bay isn't a good policy.  And he made the change without hope of political return because he could never win California anyway.  

Watch out for the adjectives that journalists use in order to manipulate you.