It's a bad headline. There's no a complete sentence here. "DOJ vs. Google evidence release" is a noun phrase ("release" here is used as a noun), modified by the clause "that judge calls embarrassing exhibit". In that clause, "judge" is the subject, "calls" is the verb, "that" is the direct object, and "embarrassing exhibit" is an object compliment, which refers to the same thing as "that". So basically we just have a big noun phrase.

This shift towards using the phrase to mean "raise the question" makes it harder for a writer to tag a claim as being guilty of that particular logical fallacy.

But your first point is right: language changes, and we have to accept new usages, even bad ones.

And yeah I guess I wasn't that surprised by MSNBC, but definitely didn't expect the percentages to be so high for the "paper of record" and NPR.

You'll note that trust varies widely by political party, with 18% of Republicans trusting the media vs 57% of Democrats. So the post in the op seems to equate "educated" with "democrat" perhaps. Even if that's valid (don't really have the facts to dispute it personally) 57% is nothing to brag about.

Another interesting poll on this subject here: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/01/americans-m..., which asked people what their political affiliation was and what their main source of news was. Of those that said Fox, 93% leaned Republican...no surprise there. But what's striking is that of those that said MSNBC, 95% leaned Democrat. The NYT, 91%. NPR, 87%! Kind of makes me wonder what the trust numbers would be if the media outlets weren't increasingly becoming echo chambers.

If I may put on my pedantic hat for a second: the article writes of the world of the New Sun tetrology: "The sun is so old that it is dying." I thought it was pretty well establish that the sun was dying of unnatural causes--possibly an artificially created black hole.

  the cadets — all but one of whom are first-years...

1. individuals are blasted with a firehose of data

2. individual-focused systems to manage this data--like GTD--are ineffective because the left hand (one person working autonomously) doesn't know what the right hand (another person) is doing, so they end up just creating more data

3. therefore, we need some sort of collective--as opposed to an individual--system so we can get a better picture of the whole and distribute work more effectively, thereby increasing productivity.

Maybe a good idea. But the "call to action" there is clearly addressed to managers rather than actually producers. They're the ones who'd control any collective system. And in my experience those always decay and get in the way...though of course that could just be me resenting limitations on personal autonomy.

I'll have to think this over more. One thing I dislike about the article is several places they say things like "Following the lead of software developers, we might use virtual task boards..." where I think I'd be more appropriate to substitute "engineering managers" for "software developers".