Per this piece, I didn't know that much about Thornton.
To start at the start? Please, get help for mental health needs. (Reading between the lines, it appears to be suicide, and one that perhaps had been looming for some time, sadly.)
On the professional side? This illustrates that philanthropy journalism isn't a savior.
Thornton was a venture/vulture capitalist. Graduated from a "citadel," if you will, for things like that — Stanford Graduate School of Business with an MBA. Worked at McKinsey. And, like many of the modern venture capitalists, though not Hucksterman or Peter Thiel, a techbro, by his investments.
People like him might back a "safe" general interest nonprofit online newspaper like the Trib, but they're not going to back, say, Jacobin. Or Counterpunch. Or Mint Press.
And, per their political background, they'll be OK with their ventures pulling punches to appease some business interests, as the Trib has before, as I have written about.
Already at the five-year mark, in 2014, the Trib had ethics-type issues.
Jim Moore, former
journalist, now political consultant, explains why the Texas Tribune's
"pay to play" idea of "journalism," kind of like Politico but on a much
broader front, is ethically wrong and more, in a four-part series. (Link from my original writing is dead.)
Arguably, rather
than becoming more ethically responsible now that it's theoretically
past its teething troubles, the Trib is worse, if anything.
Moore notes this in Part Four:
In less than five years, the Texas Tribune has gone from being an exciting startup to a hypocritical, money-grubbing promotional operation wearing a coat of many colors that it wants desperately to convince everyone is actual journalism. But it is not. There is no reason to any longer take the Tribune seriously as a news organization. They simply cannot be trusted.
The big brains of the Texas Tribune were supposed to save journalism. Instead, they are busily speeding up its extinction.
And they ought to be ashamed.
Of course, they're not.
Much of its
sellout is to largely right-wing big businesses, who make "donations"
and in exchange get puff pieces about themselves and their industries.
The type of businesses Thornton hobnobbed with and vulture capitalists with.
Hell, two years before that, Editor and Publisher has a great synopsis (dead link) of why they're not good for journalism. Three main points.
1. Their news
coverage is restricted by wealthy donor interests and pressures.
(E&P has specifics in the TT's case, re John Sharp/Texas A&M.)
So, no "probing" journalism, if told not to. (That said, I've
experienced that at for-profit papers, too.)
2. "Freeloading" by for-profit papers, with the possible result of further salary depression, etc. (We're going to see yet more of that with the Trib's new newsrooms in selected cities. The Waco Trib of Lee Enterprises will be fine with the Texas Trib starting some sort of site in Waco, as long as Lee's paper still gets Waco, Waco ISD and McLennan County legal notices.)
3. Back-scratching
for friends. Evan Smith's $315K salary as the Trib's executive editor — in 2012! —
has been mentioned by me before. I consider it out of line in general,
especially since one of the Trib's "sponsors," Texas A&M, gets
taxpayer money.
The first point is
something I've seen coming down the point for some time. Rich funders
of nonprofit papers, whether individuals or foundations, can steer these
papers into boutique journalism, spike or lighten negative stories and
more.
With the Trib?
Especially when it comes to talking Earl, Black Gold, the Texas Tea? 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.
And, successful? As in profitable? Well, maybe. It depends on what metrics and how you analyze them, as we look at Evan Smith's hoorah piece, back in 2019.
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 Moore called pay-to-play journalism? Or that, since that, you demonstrated was pay-to-pay with advertorial journalism?
Let's also not forget that in 2023, the Trib actually laid off people, canning 11 editorial staff.
We start internally, as Trib tries to spin its editorial staff gutting. It is worth noting that part of the cuts are on podcasts; print and digital-print media that "pivoted" to podcasts a few years ago, in yet another version of the tragedy of the commons, oversaturated the market.
The Austin Chronicle has two posts about the layoffs at the Texas Tribune. The first is a big one, for multiple reasons. It notes that, first of all, there will be no more prisons and criminal justice desk at the Trib. However, there are six new hires — none in editorial. All in either general development positions or directly in sponsorship.
Per what I've said elsewhere, the Trib doesn't go in depth on many issues, either. Take a good example of bad, or stereotyped, religion writing. There's no investigative journalism of their own, only what's partnered with Pro Publica.