I read a description -- sorry, don't remember where -- that finally made me feel like what happened made sense. Though who knows if any outsider will ever unde

I read a description -- sorry, don't remember where -- that finally made me feel like what happened made sense. Though who knows if any outsider will ever understand what happened. Reading between the lines, Gardner basically claimed Angwin -- who was the EIC -- didn't do the job. Angwin wanted to do journalism, but that's not the EIC job. Her job was to hire people to do journalism, and to set up the (prioritization, themes, etc) in which journalism was to be done. Angwin did that poorly. [1] Her job also was to set up technical infra. It was claimed she didn't. etc. From another article, "Angwin acknowledged to CJR that 'meetings are not my favorite thing.'" [2] . That makes me believe the firing of Angwin was justified; the EIC job is literally meetings. This is a pattern that is repeated in startups: a technical founder often doesn't understand the job is not to be the best engineer on the team, but rather to hire managers, set priorities, coordinate with the rest of the business, etc. [1] > "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..." — Jeff Larson https://link.medium.com/oPwISQSD9V https://link.medium.com/oPwISQSD9V https://medium.com/@jeff_larson/about-the-markup-6adc6a778100 https://medium.com/@jeff_larson/about-the-markup-6adc6a77810... [2] https://www.cjr.org/analysis/the-markup.php https://www.cjr.org/analysis/the-markup.php