Ethan Cox Letter

Just to quickly drop in, I can't comment on Ethan's letter for what should be obvious reasons, but it is true that Derrick is no longer working for rabble.ca. 

Not so much quiet methinks.

More like waiting for explanation.

Obvious why Catchfire and other mods cannot comment.

But someone will.

Interesting animal. Like any organization, Rabble needs to be managed one way or another.

Unlike just about any other organization, even other progressive organizations, Rabble comes with an extremely active discussion board that can be counted on to weigh in.

A version of Ethan Cox's letter is avaiable at Canada.com, of all places.

[url=http://o.canada.com/news/rabble/]Rabble has lost its way: My letter of resignation[/url]

Derrick's firing from rabble is a huge loss. Derrick was the best editor rabble could possibly have. Derrick ensured that rabble remained non-partisan, that the content of the site reflected the diversity of social movements in Canada, and that the featured content on the homepage reflected the diversity of the content on the site. As a close personal friend of Derrick, I can attest that Derrick never made rabble his own personal project, and that he regularly featured content on the site with which he was not in complete political agreement.

On a more pessimistic note, I suspect that Derrick was the only thing keeping rabble from becoming a straight up pro-NDP publication. With Derrick's firing, my guess is that the featured content on the homepage will become much more focused on electoral politics, which will create a more pro-NDP bias. I doubt left of NDP contributions will cease overnight, but if Ethan Cox's letter is an indication, I think a lot of left of NDP writers will cease contributing as a result. I think we'll see fewer blog posts by left of NDP writers, and I think we'll see fewer left of NDP news articles getting submitted and posted to the site.

Charlie Demers, a close personal friend of both myself and Derrick, and an occasional contributor at rabble, posted on Facebook that he will no longer have anything to do with the site.

Charlie also pointed out the irony of rabble firing Derrick on one week's notice right before it hosts a book launch in Vancouver on labour rights.

[url=http://rabble.ca/whatsup/book-launch-demonized-to-organized-building-new... launch: 'From Demonized to Organized: Building the New Union Movement'[/url]

It'll be interesting to see if the issue of unpaid internships at rabble comes up at the book launch.

On a more personal note, thought I havn't discussed the issue yet with Derrick, I will be reviewing my participation on babble in light of Derrick firing, a decision that I believe is a travesty of justice.

I may not have a clue about what these accusations are all about, but I do have a few thoughts on some of the general issues raised.

I think any of us who have done volunteer work, or work on spec, or work with the possibility of future pay for small organizations knows that things might not turn out. I guess the question for a roomful of people who make use of this site is: who's fault is that?

And never mind the issue of political slant which was raised (and is a separate issue), another important question is, who actually loses by walking away from it. And why one engages in the work (and I mean all of us here) in the first place.

But never mind work for causes which we support. This also reminds me of a time when I quit a job, not on a point of principle, but on a point of a boss's bad attitude and not having enough money to pay me.

I solved the problem when I quit. I didn't go around making an issue of it. Even in a case where good causes are not involved, that stuff can go around and come back on you.

This could be a masterly takeover bid by Tom Mulcair, aimed at crushing... Unionist! and Todrick! yeah! Is that why my posts have been disappearing?? Coincidence????

Todrick - if you don't like rabble - and have nothing constructive to say about it - why not do the honourable thing?

May rabble's next editor know better than to try to publish anything critical of a funder.

Unionist wrote:

I support rabble - spiritually, financially, word of mouth - and it'll take a whole lot more than utterly unfounded speculation (see above - in fact, cf. the whole 2006 saga) to shake my confidence in the most valuable media resource the left has in Canada today.

 

To this I would add there's two sides. 

Recalling the whole Audra-gate, there was all sorts of outrage based on pure speculation, leading to the Great Schism, and the formation of two spin-off discussion fora that within a couple years were populated mainly by tumbleweeds accompanied by the sound of crickets. It turned into nothing more than an exercise in How To Waste Even More Time On The Internet.

Sometimes people are fired unfairly, but we really have no idea at all. Until we have more actual facts, I'd say we need to just move along. Nothing to see here, folks.

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

May rabble's next editor know better than to try to publish anything critical of a funder.

Another morsel.

In a hypothecical situation like that, wouldn't the simplest course be to give the story to someone else to publish elsewhere?

Also, that would be the dilemma faced by anyone who is both a journalist and an advocate. 

Thanks for that, U.

Quote:

rabble.ca confirms its commitment and adherence to the values that we have always espoused, including labour rights, due process and a healthy and respectful workplace."

Hilarious.

Sineed, for me and for many others, it was not a matter of "speculation" but of giving the benefit of the doubt to the aggrieved worker. I didn't know who was telling the truth, but a progressive medium like rabble must also appear to be doing the right thing.

And here it is on [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/ethan-cox/rabble-resignation-ethan-cox_b_40... Post's website[/url], entitled: [b]Rabble Took Advantage of My Loyalty[/b]

This notation is out of date now:

Quote:

This article was originally published on Rabble.ca. It has since been removed.

Oh, and continuing thanks to those posters above who carry on ridiculing and attacking rabble.ca based on zero information.

Alright, I'll freely disclose my biases here: not only do I primarily hang out on one of those "crickets and tumbleweeds" sites, Ethan's been a friend for a good while. Since he lives in the middle of nowhere, we haven't socialized or spoken since the convention.

All that said: Knowing what I know of Ethan, I find it highly unlikely that he took this position for reasons of grandstanding or ego. Save some rhetorical flourishes, I'll give his analysis the benefit of the doubt.

First off, this scare-mongering about an ND(P) is just idiotic. I'd rather poke out my left eye - if anyone remembers the Andrew McKeever situation, I come by my NDP feelings honestly

Another thing and I'm not taking sides cuz we don't have all the info!!!!!.
< p>

But rabble isn't just Derrick's contributions (nor does he say what triggered his termination) or Ethan's so let's be careful to not make it about them like they ran all of rabble. Rabble runs as a community. No one is fleeing in droves like previously suggested

You have writers like JohnBon who put their heart and soul into their pieces and audio and to act like their contributions don't matter in a Derrick/Ethan world is unfair.

Also, what about all of you babblers? Your hearts and soul are in this site, too. We can't let the grievences of two people take down the whole site.

?
Let me tell you a quick story. I was working for rabble in 2001 (yes, 2001) on the morning of September 11

Yes, that day was a tragedy but rabble staff and babblers worked their butts off to keep the news flowing in as sites like CNN crashed from over-use.

People traded news tips, offered to call or help track down relatives and people in the states.

Rabble helped bring us the news of the FTAA and the G20 and Occupy and Idle No More and it was a group effort, not the lionization of one or two people (or one political party)

Let's not forget how great our history is at rabble and no, people are not fleeing in droves because we're a community through thick and thin and this conflict will work its way out one way or another.

And we will still remain a community

For starters, I would not agree with Ethan that "Rabble has lost its way."

Even if there is a fundamentally serious problem, it is too early to say that.

Any organization like this is going to bump into irreconcilable differences over how to run it.

If the differences are irreconcilable, as seems pretty certain to be the case here, some person or person has to leave.

Right now, that is all that most of us know.

The fact there were irreconclable differences is not in itself an indication things are in dire shape.

Sineed wrote:

Unionist wrote:

I support rabble - spiritually, financially, word of mouth - and it'll take a whole lot more than utterly unfounded speculation (see above - in fact, cf. the whole 2006 saga) to shake my confidence in the most valuable media resource the left has in Canada today.

 

To this I would add there's two sides. 

Recalling the whole Audra-gate, there was all sorts of outrage based on pure speculation, leading to the Great Schism, and the formation of two spin-off discussion fora that within a couple years were populated mainly by tumbleweeds accompanied by the sound of crickets. It turned into nothing more than an exercise in How To Waste Even More Time On The Internet.

Sometimes people are fired unfairly, but we really have no idea at all. Until we have more actual facts, I'd say we need to just move along. Nothing to see here, folks.

Okay, second laugh.

1. I was around for "Audra-Gate" and remember it all too well. I even wandered off to one of the tumbleweed forums for a while. Now, I mostly just lurk. Babble has significantly changed sinced then, and not all for the better.

2. I don't know the causes of Derrick's departure. I do know that a number of trustworthy people have described it as a "firing" with "one week's notice." See Charlie Demers, for example.

3. Unionist - with all due respect, you're really coming off as a bit of an idiot here. You sound like an employer's spokesperson - "there's nothing to see here," "someone got fired, move on," etc. I'd often have thought that the first inclination for a true unionist would be to be concerned about the appearance of an anti-worker move and demand more information - rather than mocking people who are displaying such concern and ridiculing them.

4. Rabble.ca's statement is truly horrible. Casting aspersions on what Ethan wrote, and then saying "we're not saying anything, but he's wrong." Seriously. There's privacy to be concerned about, certainly, but there are statements that can be made - "Rabble.ca has decided that a change in editorship is needed to revitalize the site," for example. Why not say something like that?

5. There is some irony in what appears to be anti-worker moves coming out just in advance of a book launch in Vancouver on workers' rights. Never mind the unpaid internship parts, which are well and truly illegal unless they fit under a specific set of circumstances. Do they? We should be asking that question, as supporters of Rabble.

6. I await my blistering from Unionist et al.

kevinharding wrote:

3. Unionist - with all due respect, you're really coming off as a bit of an idiot here. You sound like an employer's spokesperson - "there's nothing to see here," "someone got fired, move on," etc. I'd often have thought that the first inclination for a true unionist would be to be concerned about the appearance of an anti-worker move and demand more information - rather than mocking people who are displaying such concern and ridiculing them.

4. Rabble.ca's statement is truly horrible. Casting aspersions on what Ethan wrote, and then saying "we're not saying anything, but he's wrong." Seriously. There's privacy to be concerned about, certainly, but there are statements that can be made - "Rabble.ca has decided that a change in editorship is needed to revitalize the site," for example. Why not say something like that?

Backed 100%

And, people keep referencing Audra, while seeming to forget that [url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fmays... also happened[/url].

STRIKE!

Or is that so April 2006? 

Nobody likes seeing how the sausages are made.

.

kevinharding wrote:

2. I don't know the causes of Derrick's departure. I do know that a number of trustworthy people have described it as a "firing" with "one week's notice." See Charlie Demers, for example.

I don't know Charlie Demers - nor you for that matter. Derrick? I have huge respect for him and the work he has done here. My view upthread has been consistent - it's wrong to speculate without knowing one single fact.

Quote:

3. Unionist - with all due respect, you're really coming off as a bit of an idiot here. You sound like an employer's spokesperson - "there's nothing to see here," "someone got fired, move on," etc. I'd often have thought that the first inclination for a true unionist would be to be concerned about the appearance of an anti-worker move and demand more information - rather than mocking people who are displaying such concern and ridiculing them.

You know, not only did I never say the things you attributed to me - in [b]quotation marks[/b], no less - but I never would under circumstances like these. You're mixing me up with someone else. As a long-time self-described lurker, perhaps take a moment to re-read the thread. You don't need to apologize for making shit up about what I said, though I know if I made a mistake like that, I would certainly apologize.

Maybe repetition will work? People who know [b]zero[/b] facts and attack rabble as being some evil institution probably would be way way happier somewhere else. Or, possibly, they wouldn't be happy anywhere.

But if evidence (like, you know, um, facts) emerge that rabble.ca has mistreated or harassed or unjustly fired an employee, I would, at a minimum, demand to know who took such a decision and why, and what corrective measures are being taken. Condemn rabble.ca as a whole, as an institution, as a place where we gather and share information? Not yet. Not even f'ing close to yet.

Quote:

Never mind the unpaid internship parts, which are well and truly illegal unless they fit under a specific set of circumstances. Do they? We should be asking that question, as supporters of Rabble.

We have asked those questions - as a long-time lurker and with access to Google in case you missed the conversations, you'd know that.

[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/labour-and-consumption/un-and-underpaid-internsh..., last April:[/url]

Quote:

rabble.ca is a non-profit orgainization with a budget of roughly $150K and employs something like 13 (non-unionized) staff. Then they have to pay for administrative (travel, fundraising, equipment) and techinical (web hosting, communictation platforms, conference calls) costs out of what's left. Each paid staff member works hours far in excess of what they are (officially) paid for. We rarely pay for content, and podcasters and bloggers who drive site traffic are almost never paid. Interns receive a small honorarium, not a wage, for their work, despite the high quality of their work. Interns are given paid work when it's available, but it frequently is not. babblers, who have provided some of the best content in the site's history, have, of course, never been paid. 

None of these situations are acceptable in terms of respecting the labour put into making this site work. I don't know the solution to it, unless some public money drops out of the sky to fund subversive media.

In conclusion, I'm "against" them, just as every staff member is against them. But I don't know the alternative. If you have some suggestions, I will definitely bring them to the next staff meeting and raise them with the editor and publisher.

[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/labour-and-consumption/un-and-underpaid-internsh..., also last April:[/url]

Quote:

I never liked the unpaid internships on rabble either, but there is a difference between rabble's unpaid internships and those of other organizations, and that has always been a somewhat mitigating difference for me (although I agree wholeheartedly with Catchfire's post above).  And that is that rabble internships are generally something like 4-8 hours a week, and there is no set working time - so it's not just the domain of rich kids who can live at home while working for free.  And a number of rabble interns stay on, and get paid jobs at rabble too (of course, the paid jobs are also way underpaid and people work much longer hours than they're paid).  A lot of rabble staff in the past started out that way, including one of the current editors.

So rabble's internships can give people very valuable working experience in alternative media (which often leads to much better paying jobs in the publishing and media industry afterwards), the intern can set their own hours around their classes at school and part-time jobs, and the number of hours per week isn't too onerous.  That said, I would assume that interns probably do what the rest of rabble staff do - work way longer than their supposed set hours per week.

Is this ideal?  Not even a little bit.  I have no idea what the solution is.  I think rabble could do much more with their advertising, for instance - there's a lot of advertising space here that is underutilized.  But it's hard to get effective salespeople for ads, and for the very brief time I did it, I wasn't completely clear what I was selling and for how much (they should have firm rate scales published, in my opinion), so it's hard to approach potential advertisers when you're kind of fuzzy on the details.  Hopefully that's changed - it's been a few years since then, and they were just figuring out how to make it so that ads could be geographically specific.

Not to mention that, at least a few years ago anyhow, whenever an ad would show up on babble, babblers would clutch their pearls and freak out if the advertiser wasn't pure enough.  But apparently it's more pure to work on a completely inadequate budget made up of nothing but donations from unions and individual memberships, and to vastly underpay staff and offer unpaid internships, than it is to just ignore some stupid auto-generated google ad, or put up with an American Apparel ad.

I don't know the answers to their very thoughtful questions. Do you? You say we should be discussing that, as supporters of rabble. I agree. I give my modest sums of money, and I contribute tonnes of very timely and high-quality material via babble posts (just ask anyone!) - though lately it seems my posts (and just mine) have been systematically deleted for unknown reasons from threads covering a certain period of years... I haven't filed a grievance yet, but I'm thinking about it.

So, kevin, [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/labour-and-consumption/un-and-underpaid-internsh... here[/url] and let us know your thoughts about unpaid internships at rabble. The thread is still open, and I promise to add some of my reflections on that important topic.

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

STRIKE!

Or is that so April 2006?  

Welcome back, astronaut.

Hey, sport!

Well, it appears as if the structure of this organization has begun to reveal itself as corrupt. Something that ultimately has always happened in an organization whose significant intent is to take money from the wealthy. 

Unfortunately this sets up a structure where the powerful people at the top, who have all the power, are consitently tempted to to make decisions that favour themselves.

Therefore ultimately, someone who is no longer useful to those who have worked their way into the "collective's" rulers and powerful, have to be terminated in some way. They'd be sent to a Gulag or killed if they were in the former Soviet Union, who Rabbles political structure is modeled after.

All that probably happened here was either Ethan started to become un-useful in some way and the folks at the top created conditions they knew would cause him to leave. Or the folks at the top wanted the money he was going to be paid in some way.