Minnesota United reportedly hire Khaled El-Ahmad as new GM

posted in: News | 0

Minnesota United has hired Khaled El-Ahmad as its new general manager, according to the Athletic.

El-Ahmad has been at Barnsley, a club in England’s League One since September 2021. He has also worked for City Football Group.

The Swedish-born El-Ahmad was candidate for the head of football at Swedish club Hammarby, according to Yahoo.

MNUFC generated an internal list of candidates for its new GM, likely to be titled Chief Soccer Office, after letting go of Adrian Heath and Mark Watson in early October. CEO Shari Ballard said last week she was pleased with the candidates.

The new CSO will, in turn, hire the Loons next head coach.

This story will be updated.

Related Articles

Soccer |


Loons CEO Shari Ballard ‘really pleased’ with club’s GM candidates

Soccer |


Loons leader Manny Lagos takes new role with MLS club

Soccer |


Sporting Kansas City puts an end to Loons’ playoff hopes

Soccer |


Loons play to ‘leave everything out there’ with MLS playoffs on the line vs. Sporting KC

Soccer |


Loons’ big spending on Teemu Pukki is paying off in early returns

Mike Preston’s Ravens mailbag: Answering questions about Marlon Humphrey’s play, similarities to 2019 and more | COMMENTARY

posted in: News | 0

Baltimore Sun columnist Mike Preston will answer fans’ questions throughout the Ravens season. Coming off Baltimore’s 37-3 win in Week 9 against the Seattle Seahawks, plenty of questions remain heading into a Week 10 matchup against the Cleveland Browns.

Here’s Preston’s take:

(Editor’s note: Questions have been edited for length and clarity.)

In the offseason, you called for the Ravens to part ways with Lamar Jackson and take a long look at coach Harbaugh. Going into the Seattle game, you picked the Seahawks to win. You seem to consistently rate the Ravens as no better than one of the better-to-average teams. Yet, the Ravens are now 7-2 as a team without any serious weaknesses. Would you care to reassess your opinion at the midseason mark? — Tom in Catonsville

Tom, I also picked the Ravens to beat Indianapolis and Pittsburgh, and they lost both games. It’s about consistency, not now, but in December and rolling into the playoffs. The Ravens haven’t hit that level yet consistently on offense, and the coaches and the players are aware of an area in which they need to improve.

As for Jackson, he demanded to be traded and I would have obliged him. The Ravens would have, too, but 31 NFL teams backed off of him.

Can the Ravens win a Super Bowl this year? Of course, but so can Philadelphia, San Francisco, Kansas City and even Cincinnati, which was struggling early in the season. It’s not where the team is situated in November, but how they are playing heading into the postseason.

As for Harbaugh, I’ve had problems with his clock management decisions and being too aggressive in the past but wrote he was one of the top-five coaches in the NFL.

Here’s the bottom line: There are three keys to winning the championship. One is balance on both sides of the ball. The team with the fewest weaknesses usually wins.

Secondly, the Ravens have to be able to put together three, four or maybe five strong performances in the postseason to win a championship, something they haven’t done since the 2012 season. That’s consistency.

Finally, Jackson has to step up his game in the postseason. Quarterbacks carry teams in the playoffs, and he hasn’t been able to do that in the previous five years. If he does and the Ravens win the Lombardi Trophy, great for them.

What is your opinion on Marlon Humphrey’s performance so far this season? In past years, he has been a standout on defense. Now, it seems that he has been in the background. Is it because there are so many other standouts on defense? Thanks and keep up the great work. — John Sinclair

Humphrey missed time in the preseason with an injury and it takes time to get back into playing shape. I think he is a good cornerback, but not great. I also think he is better playing inside or over a slot or tight end than playing on the outside. Humphrey isn’t that fast. That said, he does have a presence in the locker room and is a leader on the field.

Overall, the cornerback position is an area in which the Ravens have a problem, but the pass rush has made up for some weaknesses.

As for Humphrey, he’ll come around.

It was around this point in the 2019 season that the Ravens started not just beating teams, but beating them down, and the current team is starting to give off vibes of that team with the Big Truzz-type fun/team spirit. Does the 2023 Ravens defense put them ahead of 2019 for you? Thanks. — Paul Moss

Yes, indeed. Overall, I have not been impressed by the quality of play in the NFL. It has dropped off in recent years, and the league is starting to look a lot like the NBA during the regular season. But this defense has been dominant most of the season, and there are some similarities to 2000, when the Ravens had better athletes and they were physically tougher. They punished teams.

This group has a higher football IQ. When you talk and meet with these guys, it’s a pretty bright bunch and you can see why coordinator Mike Macdonald can give opposing offenses multiple looks.

Maybe a big key was bringing in Chuck Smith as the team’s outside linebackers coach and pass-rushing specialist for this season. The lack of a pass rush has hurt the Ravens for many years, but it’s no longer a problem.

With Mahomes having to do everything without a group of receivers that can’t get it done in the passing game and solely a tight end to rely upon (sounds familiar), and a Bengals team with an injured starting quarterback to begin the season (rather than later) that has had success in the past two seasons following a plethora of injuries to a team that was not only your rival in the division but also had the lead in the conference going into later stages of each of those seasons, how is it the Ravens are constantly criticized when these other two teams are praised when they win and given the benefit of the doubt whenever they struggle or are off their game? — Greggory Washington

Let’s see, the Bengals have been to the AFC championship the last two years and have a great young quarterback in Joe Burrow, who seems to have them in the title hunt again. The Chiefs have won two of the past four Super Bowl titles and Mahomes might end up being the best quarterback to ever play the game.

Until further notice, as former Ravens coach Brian Billick said after winning the title in 2000, “We are the champions until someone takes our crown.”

Many in the national media have jumped on the Ravens bandwagon recently. It’s all part of the hype, similar to promoting the NFL Most Valuable Player and the Heisman Trophy.

The 3-4 defense started in 1976. Since then, I think Roquan Smith and Patrick Queen are the best inside linebacker tandem ever. I can’t imagine the Ravens letting Queen walk. Does that make Ronnie Stanley and Marlon Humphrey possible cap casualties? — Patrick Tracey

Between defensive tackle Justin Madubuike, Geno Stone and Patrick Queen, the Ravens have a lot of tough decisions to make. Both Madubuike and Queen would be wise to hit the open market unless Ravens general manager Eric DeCosta offers them some type of blockbuster deal.

There are some creative ways he might be able to sign Stone and either Queen or Madubuike, but the recent multiyear signings of Jackson and Smith make it really hard. There are windows for a lot of teams to win a Super Bowl, and the Ravens are in it right now.

Looking at the upcoming three games before the bye, what are your feelings about the Ravens facing the Browns, Bengals and Chargers? Can the Ravens keep rolling? — Ed Helinski

No one in this league is unbeatable. It will be interesting to see how Deshaun Watson plays in his second consecutive start since returning from a shoulder injury, and the Bengals are playing well, especially on defense. There is no fear of the Chargers because they are always soft and have a strange coach in Brandon Staley.

But again, it’s not where you start, but where you finish. The second half of the Ravens’ schedule is much tougher than the first.

Opinion | The First Post-Twitter Global Conflict

posted in: News | 0

I first began using Twitter, now X, after the 2010 earthquake in Port-au-Prince, when I could not find my family. I was in Washington, D.C. Within days of the earthquake, hundreds of volunteers, using a crisis-mapping platform called Ushahidi (Swahili for “witness”), began logging calls for help via cellphone texts and Twitter, putting them on a map and sending that information to search and rescue teams. I only found my family because Facebook and Twitter worked even when their phones and email did not.

Not long after came the Arab Spring, when Twitter was a source of crucial, sometimes lifesaving information and a powerful coordinating tool for demonstrators. For journalists and analysts, it was matchless for watching events unfold in real time. I was in Istanbul during the 2013 Gezi Park demonstrations, which began as a protest against the destruction of a park and turned into a massive uprising against the Turkish government. Like everyone, I used Twitter to figure out which streets were safe. No news agency could replicate this function for citizens on the ground. But I used it, too, to tell the world what was happening in Turkey.

That was the beginning of an era. Twitter was obviously imperfect, but it quickly became the central platform for gathering information and networking in politics and international affairs, especially in crises where traditional media coverage was thin.

The war in Gaza marks the end of that era. X CEO Elon Musk has so profoundly undermined the functions that made Twitter useful in an international crisis that it is now counterproductive to turn to it if you hope to understand what’s happening on the ground when news breaks around the world. Over the course of 10 years, X has evolved from indispensable to useless.

It’s fitting that along with his other changes, Musk changed the name of the company. Literally and figuratively, we’re witnessing the first post-Twitter major world conflict.

Disinformation and misinformation proliferated on the platform prior to Musk’s takeover. But the difference in degree is so significant now as to amount to a difference in kind. Almost every significant change Musk has made has reduced its value as a source of reliable information from and for people affected by a disaster, and every change, similarly, has increased its utility to malicious propagandists and scammers.

When Musk arrived, he dissolved Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council, the advisory group of some 100 independent civil, human rights and other organizations that helped the company to combat misinformation, and fired its full-time Trust and Safety employees, including all but one member of the AI ethics team that monitored algorithmic amplification.

He blew up the old verification system. A blue check once signified that the account belonged to someone whose identity had been confirmed and who fell under one of the following categories: government; companies, brands and organizations; news organizations and journalists; entertainment; sports and gaming; activists and organizers; content creators; and influential individuals.

The prevalence on Twitter of verified journalists, academics, researchers and government sources made it possible, in a crisis, to quickly find reliable people who were on the ground and who could probably be trusted to report what they were seeing in reasonably good faith. Now, the blue checkmark signifies only that the owner has paid for it. When you buy a blue check, your posts go to the top of the search results and replies, irrespective of others’ desire to see them.

X now pays users based on the number of views they receive, creating a massive incentive to post sensationalistic and inflammatory lies. On-the-ground witnesses — and worse, people who need help — can’t reach their audiences unless they have a costly blue check mark and a willingness to compete with the most outrageous promoted content.

Musk has stripped headlines and summaries off article previews. Images are no longer accompanied by context, making it that much easier to misunderstand them and that much less likely that users will read the article. Meanwhile, Musk promotes — directly, via his own tweets and algorithmically — conspiracy theorists, Russian war propagandists, hostile-state media, foreign and domestic extremists and engagement farmers who exploit pain and tragedy to gain followers.

Musk has created the conditions for a flood of misinformation and fake accounts — a problem that has proven particularly acute during the current war in Gaza. AI-generated images are passed off as real: In a photo shared millions of times, for example, a man is seen carrying his children out of the ruins of a bombed building. The post says, “An image is worth a thousand words.” The Palestine flag suggests the image is from Gaza. A BBC fact-checker has confirmed the image is completely fake, generated by AI.

A massive number of accounts posting images that purport to be from Gaza are in fact posting images from unrelated conflicts. These tweets have racked up millions of views and shares.

According to Cyabra, an Israeli analysis firm, pro-Hamas forces have launched a coordinated influence operations campaign involving tens of thousands of fake profiles. As a result, one in five social media accounts participating in the conversation about the war in Gaza are fake. One in four pro-Hamas profiles are fake. It’s not clear who is creating and using these fake profiles to spread disinformation, but it could be anyone from Russian internet trolls to antisemites to far-right hucksters who are eager to make a buck.

Accounts that were once clearly labeled as state-affiliated, such as that of Iran’s Press TV, are no longer distinguished from others. In September, an EU report found that the “reach and influence” of Kremlin-backed accounts on social media, and on X in particular, had increased in 2023.

In another study, the EU found that disinformation was more easily found on X than on any other social media platform. It also received more engagement than it did on any other platform.

That report found that X had the highest ratio of what the authors called “disinformation actors” to real posts. “The average engagement with mis/disinformation content found on X is 1.977 times as high as the average engagement with non-mis/disinformation,” the authors wrote. In other words, X users are twice as likely to engage with lies as the truth.

Snuff videos have proliferated on the platform, too. A pro-Kremlin account shared a video of a beheading in Ukraine in April. Endless videos of atrocities purportedly committed by Hamas or by Israel clatter across my feed: It is all but impossible to use X now without seeing a video that shows, or purports to show, the murder of a human being.

Meanwhile, good sources of information are leaving the platform. Many of the most useful voices are now gone. Reporters have fled, largely moving to Bluesky. But Bluesky can’t replace X yet; its network is too small. You can use it to talk to other journalists, not so much to find sources or promote your work to your readers.

To judge by the responses to the fake tweets, most people have no idea they’re fake. Musk certainly doesn’t. Recently, he recommended (in a since-deleted tweet) that his followers follow two well-known disinformation accounts — one of them, for example, provides such helpful analysis as, “The overwhelming majority of people in the media and banks are zi0nists.” When Musk suggests something like this, it is not just his 162 million followers who see it. You can mute him, but unless you do, everything Musk says is now forced into the timeline of every user of the platform, whether or not they follow him.

Some will reply, correctly, that the mainstream media hasn’t covered itself in glory during this conflict either. Many news organizations have made serious mistakes in the past weeks. But the difference between sloppy or biased news coverage and millions of deliberate lies — none retracted — is significant. If you read the former, you’ll still be on this planet. If you read the latter, you’ll be in an alternate universe.

As for Israelis or Palestinians hoping to use the platform to exchange lifesaving information? Forget it. For eight bucks, anyone can impersonate the official account of the IDF. (Impersonation is still officially against X’s rules, but the lack of a real verification system makes it easier to do for longer.) How could Israelis trust warnings and updates from their government or from each other on X when Hamas or Iranian operatives can so readily pretend to be anyone they please? How would Palestinian rescuers use X to locate people who need help when every image they see directs them to Syria?

This state of affairs is massively deleterious to American national security. Members of Congress are as vulnerable to hostile disinformation as anyone else. One morning, I watched a number of Russian accounts, including that of former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, begin simultaneously to push out the line that Israel had been attacked with weapons the U.S. sent to Ukraine, which Israelis immediately denied. By afternoon, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) was asserting this as fact. 

Organized, state-sponsored information operations aim to generate support in the U.S. for policies that are not in our interest and dampen support for policies that are. “Feel the difference,” wrote Medvedev on X recently on a post that showed two photos: on the left, a vast sea of protesters against Israel — a U.S. ally — and, on the right, a pitiful handful of protesters against Russia’s actions in Ukraine. That Russian information operations on social media have inflamed the global orgy of antisemitism we’ve seen since Hamas’ attack goes without saying.

X has long been a critical source of information for journalists, and the news cycle now demands reporting at X speed. For most users, the website was a diversion. For journalists, it was essential. We built our audiences and our careers on Twitter. We invested years of our labor and creativity — for free. We built it, and we made it valuable.

The degeneration of the quality of information on X means that journalists who are still on the platform waste far more time looking for the signal in the noise. They waste more time running down rumors. They are at greater risk of sharing fake information. They are doubtless absorbing narratives and framings from X shaped by disinformation, even if they’re not sharing falsehoods. It’s far from clear how the media will adapt to a post-Twitter world.

At least in the short term, the market won’t be able to solve this problem because Twitter’s value to consumers was owed to its market dominance. Everyone used it. A number of competitors are now trying to fill the void, but because the microblogging market is now fractured, no company can play the central role Twitter played.

That might be why some governments are stepping in to fix these problems instead. On Oct. 13, the EU launched a probe of X over the spread of disinformation and violent content related to the Israel-Hamas conflict, the first step in an investigation to determine whether the platform is violating the EU’s new Digital Services Act.

Congress should do the same. The situation is intolerable to a democracy. Musk is harming American security by gift-wrapping X and handing it over to terrorists and hostile governments who are running information operations against democratic ones. In the long term, it’s finalizing the divorce between the public and reality.

But Congress seems incapable. It was hard enough for the House to elect a speaker. X has been left to govern itself, and it has no interest in preserving the uniquely important role Twitter played by allowing real people, around the world, instantly to find and communicate with one another during a crisis.

It’s fashionable to be cynical about X, but at its height, it was an astonishing human achievement. It cannot be rebuilt and it’s hard to see how it could be built again. One man destroyed it. It is one of history’s great acts of vandalism.

We still badly need reliable, real-time information about global conflicts on a platform with the reach that Twitter once had. But X won’t ever again be that platform.

Former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka sells Streeterville condo for $575,000

posted in: News | 0

Hall of Fame former Chicago Bears player and head coach Mike Ditka and his wife, Diana, on Nov. 7 sold their longtime two-bedroom, 1,904-square-foot condominium on the 39th floor of a Streeterville high-rise for $575,000.

Known as “Iron Mike,” Ditka, 84, was a six-time All-Pro tight end for the Bears, and later, he also was the team’s head coach from 1982 until 1992, during which he led the Bears to their only Super Bowl victory ever, in 1986. Ditka maintained a presence in the Chicago area even after his time as the Bears’ head coach came to an end, as he kept a 5,121-square-foot house in Bannockburn until selling it in 1997.

Also in 1997, Ditka lent his name to a Magnificent Mile steakhouse — the first of several that eventually would open — in which he was an investor. After Ditka’s second and final head coaching stint, with the New Orleans Saints, concluded in early 2000, he and his wife paid $700,000 several months later for their Streeterville condo.

Located in the Olympia Centre building, the corner-unit condo has two bathrooms, a grand foyer, hardwood floors, a kitchen with stainless steel appliances and granite countertops and a primary bedroom suite with two walk-in closets and plenty of built-ins. The unit also has access to the building’s common rooftop deck on the 64th floor.

Ditka and his wife got a “good price” for the condo, listing agent Emily Sachs Wong of @properties told Elite Street. And the couple received “multiple offers” for the unit, she added.

Wong previously told Elite Street that the couple listed the condo because they no longer live in the city. Indeed, records show that they continue to own and live in a 4,294-square-foot house in Naples, Fla. that they built in 2002.

The Ditkas first listed the condo on Oct. 13 for $599,900, and it went under contract to sell just 10 days later.

The condo had a $14,613 property tax bill in the 2022 tax year.

Public records do not yet identify the buyers.

Goldsborough is a freelance reporter.