Don't get me wrong: I was a good employee during my 20 years' in the company. And I can back that up with a record of uninterrupted annual raises and good to glowing performance reviews.
But 20 years is one-fifth of Gannett's lifespan, long enough to own up to some of the blame we naturally want to heap on someone (usually, someone else) as the once unimaginable become common. In my posts, I reference CEO Craig Dubow more than any other person, so it would be natural to assume I hold him singularly responsible.
I do not. It takes a village of CEOs to lead a company astray. Plus, remember: There's one other name that appears on this blog far more often than Dubow's -- or anyone else's -- and that person bears some responsibility, too.Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write gannettblog[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the green sidebar, upper right.
There's one other name that appears on this blog far more often than Dubow's...
ReplyDeleteOH MY GOD, LARRY ST. CYR
My blame for this mess is the whole hierarchy of GCI, not just the top leader. Dubow is just the orchestra leader, but the drummers aren't beating on tune, the violins are off-tune, the trumpet players have a hangover and the cymbals are out of synch. The whole mess needs to be rationalized, and I don't see any effort towards doing that in spite of an economy that is clearly getting more dire. They will eventually be forced into action, but it is the natural reaction of bureaucrats not to make decisions because they would bear the blame if something goes wrong. Fire the vice presidents and top salaried corporate toadies, and I think this company has a future.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteWere you ever in charge of an entire Gannett unit? Did you ever set policy for a division? Did you develop ideas for improvements, savings and new products, and pass them up the chain of command?
If the answers are no, no and yes, I hope you see my point.
There are key people who bear RESPONSIBILITY for the company's current shitty state of affairs. Those are the publishers and key executives at corporate. They were hired to manage a site or the entire company, to use their expertise and skill toward shaping the company's greater goals. And they failed miserably.
We who work for the company have played a collective role in Gannett's past, present and future. But for the most part, we have done our jobs, above and beyond what was asked of us. We developed new products, we sold the ads, we wrote the blockbuster stories, we developed the Web sites and wrote the headlines and designed the pages and designed the ads and ran the presses and delivered the paper. We did our jobs!
The rules used to be that if you did your job, and did it well, you were rewarded. Now we have begun to realize that the people who have been getting the biggest rewards haven't done their jobs well at all.
Dubow and the rest of the gang at the top are the only Gannett employees who have been tasked, specifically and incontrovertibly, with leading the company. They are the only ones who have been given the responsibility and, more importantly, the authority to do what needs to be done to make this company succeed.
They could have done a thousand things, gone in a hundred different directions, hired dozens of different people to lead the various sites and divisions and departments. They alone have that power. They alone ultimately bear that responsibility.
And boy, did they ever fuck it up.
I am a reporter. I have specific responsibility for one thing: To cover my beat, and cover it well. I have done that. I do not have the responsibility or the authority to change the way the entire company, my site or even my department does business. I have made suggestions and offered up ideas, and seen them rebuffed or flat-out ignored by the people who do have the responsibility and authority.
In short: We did our jobs.
They failed at theirs.
And we are the ones paying the price. When Craig Dubow leaves Gannett - and please, make it soon! - he'll be set for life. He'll never have to work again.
The rest of us will be on the streets, pounding the proverbial payment and looking for whatever scraps of work remain out there.
So thanks, Craig. We appreciate it.
Jim: You're a class act. And your post reminds me of the wonderful letter G.K. Chesterton once wrote to an editor -- something along the lines of: "You asked what's wrong with the world? I am."
ReplyDeleteI'm a mere reporter, so I don't hire or fire or set priorities for the company, but I screw up sometimes. I want to join you in claiming my share of the blame. I work hard and I care about quality journalism. I promise to resign the day I don't. But I'm not perfect, Gannett is not perfect, the world is not perfect. Far from it. We acknowledge our faults and make good-faith efforts to do better.
I plan to work hard and with integrity until the day I walk out the door. And then I plan to work hard and with integrity in my next job -- which I hope will be in journalism, too. But who knows about that? There's an awful lot we can't control, and there are an awful lot of factors chewing away at newspapers these days. So it's important to be honest about the things we can control -- attitude, conscientious work ethic, compassion for our colleagues and communities, many of whom are in real anguish. Those qualities may go unnoticed and unrewarded in our offices, especially in these mean, lean times, but that doesn't make them any less essential -- or refreshing.
Honest analysis is important and I am thankful for the liberty to read the views of many knowledgeable people here.
Unnecessary roughness does nothing to advance the ball, as we all know. It just leaves everybody sore.
So I salute the tone of your post, and I say: "Me, too."
JIM,
ReplyDeleteHAVE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU ABOUT DUBOW. When a CEO acts like a total dictator there is very little that anyone-- from top management on down-- can do to stop the carnage. Oh, we could have taken steps as mere grunts-- like voting NO on the raises and options, but we were powerless without a solidified backing. We had no unions behind us, and no one in management ever let us speak above whispers. In fact, it was even impossible to speak in the ladies' room without having some embellished complaints taken back to the Publisher.
In a minor sense, it's blaming the victims, knowing that the victims were powerless to go against the Emperor!
When you left GCI, the stock price was $35, half of its all-time high. You have no responsibility for what happened afterwards, which has led to today's miserable $3. Even when you were here, you had no responsiblity for the grand plans of GCI, or the ignoring of the Internet, which contributed to today's plight of the company. These were decisions made by those at higher grades than you or me. The fault of what has happened to GCI lies at the feet of the execs, not the peons. If this was the military, they would be cashiered out of their positions forthwith.
ReplyDeleteThank you, all -- and excellent points. Also, just to emphasize, I blame myself first. But I'm not apportioning blame.
ReplyDeleteI have beaten myself bloody over what I have done to cause this catastrophe, and I do not believe I am responsible. I wrote good stories. I followed through with whatever dreadful idea editors devised. I got good reports. Is it my fault that readers aren't interested in us anymore? Is it my fault that Gannett is facing such economic problems? What could I have done to avoid all of this? I have beaten myself raw with those thoughts, and I regret nothing.
ReplyDeleteWhen "USA TODAY" came out I was just a kid. I helped my father who was challenging his child support payments with a second job delivering the brand new "USA TODAy" newspaper . Me and my dad and my brother took a truck and positioned 40 honor boxes for his route to deliver for the people. He was a union guy from second generation. Me being third. He expierenced slack from taht cira 1984 or so. I regret that we ever did anything for this company! I have worked now for Gannett for 15 years and am now in my 40's and that moment when I reflect my dad was trying to promote his career. It never happened he died. Not gannett fault but I think it would of never of even blossomed? But I now have seen the foul bloom of working for gannett and I do wish I had my father to talk to for advice and if I knew now that I should of known then that gannett is a worthless piece of crap company to work for...thank you for listening
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that a big part of the blame starts with Alan Neuharth. Despite the fact that he had good journalistic intentions, the company was a pale comparison of itself once his tenure was over.
ReplyDeleteObviously, Craig arrived late to the game. BUT... I was a big supporter of his kum-bah-yah approach and all it got me was a pink slip. The bosses in the field are doing things their own way. He is the freakin' CEO and has a responsibility to get his team in line. He hasn't yet proven he can accomplish that goal.
Ken Berry of Chattanooga to the rescue!
ReplyDeleteI blame you too Jim.
ReplyDeleteThere's one other name that appears on this blog far more often than Dubow's -- or anyone else's -- and that person bears some responsibility to.
ReplyDeleteTo? Too? Tu? LOL
Heh, are you hiring copy editors? (Gannett seems to be letting them go at my paper)
Ultimately, a TRUE LEADER accepts responsibility for the performance of the organization he/she presides over.
ReplyDeleteBlame for GANNETT'S current condition can be apportioned to many.
I started selling all of my company match stock in November-2003 because I saw that GANNETT -under McCorkindale- was borrowing money to acquire properties like an egomaniacal real estate investor borrow 100% of purchase prices to buy frantically buy buildings at a Market-Top.
Since I starting selling my Gannett Stock, it has dropped 96% in nominal terms. It was not that hard to see. Henry David Thoreau wrote "It's not what you look at, It's what you see."
McCorkingdale and other overly acquisitive strategists deserve a fair amount of blame for short-sighted policies that have crippled Gannett and given its current economic-financial manauverability - like the Bismark during it's finale battle.
AT in NJ gets a vote. I'd like to know how much her bonus was. If it's based on profitability, sales revenue couldn't possibly have yielded much of a mentionable pay out. Instead, she re-structured her sales staff - again. Our poor advertisers never know which sales gal will come a-knockin!
ReplyDeleteI'm still failing to see why you blame yourself. You were a reporter and editor, a mid-level functionary. Like many of us, you did your job well.
ReplyDeleteOr is there something I'm missing? What else do you think you could have done?
Jim, Did you become a millionaire off of Gannett?
ReplyDeleteIf the answer is " NO" then you are not to blame.
The blame goes on the heads of the
GREEDY Rat Bastard's that were brought into profitable papers that GCI bought up,then milked them dry of every last red cent,at the cost of the employees and the customers
Blame rests with the top management. But it also rests with local publishers who are cowardless.
ReplyDeleteThey care about two things: 1. Staying employed. 2. Making profit plan and achieving bonuses.
They often do this at the expense of the employees and the products.
I know because I lived through it and I'm telling you that's the root of the problem — at the local level where GMs, Publishers, Editors, etc. are so afraid of losing their jobs that they follow blindly the corporate mandates.
It's tough to admit, but I was part of that culture for a while too. So believe me there's plenty of blame to go around and it doesn't stop at corporate.
Regional VPs, Publishers and Operating Committee members share in it as well.
Now that I'm out of it and I watch Gannett crumble I can't help but wonder about lack of leadership at all levels.
Do you think, not just at Gannett but at other corprations, that the CEO has become just another employee working for a pay check?
ReplyDeleteCEO no longer comes from within and is only looking short term?
In any company, "upper management" only needs to be like the top person as that would appear to be the "model" employee. As a result, you may end up with a bunch of mini Dubows running around. That's not to say there aren't some good managers, past and present, but as the heard gets thinned, the common manager/VP mold starts emulating the people at the top if for no reason other than self preservation. In Phoenix, I witnessed managers mirroring every move the VP or Publisher made in meetings. No matter how correct or incorrect their opinion was, one wouldn't dare disagree. When asked for opinions, one wouldn't dare be honest if it differed with the opinion of the VP. Many of us are no longer at the paper and speaking for myself, accept responsibility for all that went on while I was there. I accept responsibility for all I could control or influence and feel sorry for those remaining at Gannett's largest daily paper and the whims of people protecting their egos, not serving the readers, employees and company as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI think McCorkindale should sign on and take a big piece of the blame. He was at the helm when all the buying took place that left us with the debt that is pulling us under now.
ReplyDelete3:30 am: Ooops.
ReplyDeleteI'm gone, but I don't blame myself for anything that happens to this company. Actually, I did my part. I filed an age discrimination claim against the company in hopes that someday Gannett will understand and appreciate the kind of workforce diversity that truly reflects communities.
ReplyDeleteI refuse to take blame. As a matter of fact, I was laid off because I refused to play along with their games. I refused to stroke their egos and tell them their stupid ideas were the wonderful. They forgot that the product they are supposed to supply is news...not fluff...not PR...not advertising. News.
ReplyDeleteSuch humble silly doubletalk. I didn't do anything wrong and in fact I always got good reviews, but somehow I'm guilty. If you were a CEO this blog would eat you alive.
ReplyDeleteThanks Jim. All of us, every last one of us, bear some responsibility for the company's state and not just the easy-target guys and ladies at the top. It's irresponsible and lazy to pinpoint a handful of people as being responsible for this. Indeed, what percentage of the company's current state of affairs could be blamed on a horrific economic tide that wiped out the real estate market, decimated auto sales and has retailers running scared. That's such a huge portion of our bottom line that we would be suffering and the stock in the tank regardless of who was CEO and what decisions were being made at the top. Is there any one of the tomato-throwing commentators out there on this blog willing to say that if they were the CEO, THEY would have made the decisions to overcome an economic situation that has basically wiped out almost every publicly-traded company out there? Any of you? If so, I'd love to see the list of YOUR ideas, decisions, policies, changes, etc., that would have been made to change our current course. Have bad decisions been made, sure? But it's easy to sit on the sideline and criticize, as so many do. Harder to try. Well, in any event, here's who I think is responsible: the reporters who fought for years against posting news online, the photographers who didn't embrace video fast enough, any employee who called in sick a half dozen days a year when they weren't really sick, people who overspent and padded their expense accounts while on assignment, people who make factual errors in stories and damage our credibility, reporters and editors with bias so strong they've alienated many a reader because they refuse to consider other points of view and violate the cardinal rule of not letting personal beliefs factor into the way they portray news events and public figures ... shall I go on. Honestly, when the paper that lands in the driveway every morning basically pisses off a huge percentage of the customers who are paying for it because it's either biased, sloppy or ... mis-delivered to the shrubs or a neighbor's house ... or printed out of register ... and on and on and on, those things matter too. But, of course, all of those things are not the fault of the perfect craftsmen and craftswomen just doing their jobs every day. They're all, somehow, the fault of the CEO sitting in his office in Tyson's who has very little if anything to do with the actual product you put on the street in your town. That product, of course, the one YOU are responsible for making better is irrelevant I guess.
ReplyDeleteIMHO, the blame for all the failings of corporations rest at the top with the exorbitant(sp?)executive's salaries. They are to blame for the recession as well. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer...
ReplyDeleteHey, we weren't in any position to make any decision in this company. Corporate makes the decisions, and we just carry them out. So why do we share any blame for what is happening? If you scream loudly, you are branded a discontent, given bad performance reviews and eventually sent packing. We didn't take the discontents and poor workers and send them all over to handle the Web product to get them out of the way. We didn't make the decision to take on Drudge with our own Drudgereport. We didn't make the decision to ignore Google and the impact of putting our stuff online for free. We didn't believe the Internet was just another innovation like radio or TV that would augment what we do. When we realized the Internet was supplanting what we do, we were not the ones who made the decision to do nothing because 2 million people are reading USA Today. We are not the ones who made the decision not to diversify away from newspapers and TV just in case there was a severe advertising turndown. Everyone who made those decision is responsible for what is happening to GCI, and _ guess what _ they are still there today in the Crystal Towers hopelessly trying to figure out what happened while cashing out all they can before we finally crash.
ReplyDeleteGood exercise in self examination but I doubt any of where we are is a result of the rank and file.
ReplyDeleteAt my unit our newsroom has a case of awards (actually walls full of 'em) from all type of organizations. From community non-profits who have deep appreciation for our reporting and publicity to the professional awards we all strive to earn/win.
But the constant turn over of management each with a new agenda and a new brand have alienated the very customers we need and crave. Viewers.
Without an audience what can we do? Monetize nothing equals nothing.
What leaders (not managers) have been recruited or attracted to GCI? Few?!
How many differing agendas have been laid out over the years? None designed with the audience in mind? How many reporters, anchors, stories etc. have been changed or jettisoned in the name of "Corporate believes this is better?" Totally devaluing the consistency and reliability the audience deserves.
Has there been ongoing investment in the future? A social network site? A national weather site (Accuweather)? An online classified site (Craigslist)? A regional sports site (Sportsline)? One or more cable TV networks? (Discovery's profits are up 30%)
CareerBuilder is about all they have to show for their effort. And this folks; is not the fault of employees.
Check out the ideas on Jim's blog. Better than almost anything that trickles down from McLean.
The beginning of the end for Gannett was in 1967 when the stock went public. That changed the focus in the BIG bosses' minds to focus on making sure the stockholders get their profit rather than the readers getting good news.
ReplyDeleteIn the "good ole days" things were different on Wall Street. But as the years progressed, CEOs' wallets got MUCH fatter in comparison to the average workers and Wall Street got greedier and greedier.
Of course the BIG bosses will say otherwise. But whenever a decision comes down to what makes sense to readers vs. what makes sense for the stockholders, guess who wins - EVERY TIME.
I actually had that spelled out to me in a group meeting at another publication several years ago. The financial officer told the whole company that turning a profit for shareholders was the bottom line. The whole room was stunned. At the time, our paper (and larger company which owned it) were profitable. However, we collectively weren't profitable enough and were shortly thereafter bought out by guess who. ;)
It's interesting because if you look at all these failing papers individually, most of them are turning profits when measured as a single entity.
Newspapers and news corporations in general should NOT be publicly traded companies - never should have been. End of story.
I won't speak to the business side of Gannett's woes, which I put squarely on the shoulders of McCorkindale, both when he ruled (buying the brit papers and saddling the company with billions in debt) and when he annointed Dubow as a successor. Forget about the stock price. Forget the fact that I've never seen him in the USAT newsroom. Just look at his almost unintelligible letter to shareholdes in the current annual report. He can't even talk a good game - which is at least 25% of a CEO's job.
ReplyDeleteI can speak to what I've seen on the editorial side at the Gannett papers I've worked at, both as a reporter and editor. Under former print division chief Gary Watson, there was a top down emphasis on moving managers around to as many properties as possible - which may have been seen as a sign of loyality to the company, but did little for continuity at local papers or build management expertise. Worse, the local papers continue to lack an institutional knowledge of their markets. More problematic, from the get go, there's been an emphasis on hiring and promoting minorities - managers were given bonuses for such hires, particularly at the editor level.It didn't matter who may have been more qualified, and I can't tell you what it did, and continues to do, for morale.
I don't know what the policy is these days, but time and time again, qualified people were, and have been passed over for promotion at the smaller Gannett properties and at USA Today. I know that the emphasis on minority hires continues at USAT, even though there are scores of talented applicants who have lost there jobs who would be great hires. Shouldn't we try to "trade up" in the quality of our hires - if we're making them - these days?
Blame it on McCorkindale, who doesn't get enough credit and was indeed the most egotistic, and Martore.
ReplyDeleteWho’s to blame? The entire newspaper industry is in the dumps – not just Gannett. Get over the idea that anyone at Gannett is responsible. Get over the idea that Gannett either caused the problem or can fix the problem. Neither can it fix the herd of other failing newspaper publishers -- who incidentally failed without the help of Dubow or your vast collection of villains. Here’s what happened and what, I hope, is gonna happen:
ReplyDelete1) The internet is great. Most people who have experienced the net would prefer to be sitting on their couch with a Kindle-like object, reading an infinite variety of news and sipping their coffee. Adios presses! Adios pressmen! Adios delivery people! Adios copy editors who take day-old news, edit it in strange ways, and slap it on paper!
2) If Gannett or Lee or Thompson or the New York Times or anyone else had seen the Internet coming .... they’d still be exactly where they are, because readers don’t have to pay for their online content.
3) So, is the Fourth Estate dead (In Re Estate of Fourth Estate?) I think that someone is going to figure out how to retain community newsrooms consisting largely of local reporters and a few editors, whose local copy is fed into some central spot and formatted for the Web. If this is not offered for free, but is sold as a package community media deal, people are going to buy it because they want to know what’s going on in their communities and there’ll be no other source. And they’re going to enjoy seeing what’s going on in the city in which their best friend lives, or their daughter lives, or Uncle Bob lives, all for one low bundled price. But because people who read community news in fact like news, not drivel, whoever makes this work is going to have to focus again on quality reporting, establishing sources, etc etc. Adios stupid local content that is the brainchild of some marketer passing himself off as a journalist!
Jim,
ReplyDeleteEveryone is responsible in some part for this mess, including me. I have been out of the Gannett mess for three years and am grateful. Thank you.
4:56. I can tell you that USA Today in particular has a history of not hiring the best person for the job. Many hires were exclusively based on skin color or ethnicity, and managing editors were secretly rewarded for NOT always hiring the best talent available. To make matters worse, they went to great lengths to retain unqualified and even problematic staffers, often for years, while driving some very skilled folks away for, in part, not getting on board to help them line their pockets.
ReplyDeleteIt's been things like this, and other corrupt and just plain stupid actions and decisions that have turned USAT into just another crappy place to work. And just to be clear, these same managers hired some pretty awful people of ALL races, including whites. But they were rewarded for hiring minorities and therefore were far more sloppy in their selections. That in turn has created some morale issues. But more importantly, during tough times, you need the best people you can get. You don't need political correctness. The USAT newsroom shouldn't be a J school. You just need folks who have mastered the language, know their craft, and have the work ethics and skill set to get things done. Instead, USAT has retained a bunch of people who don't even know what's going on in the news, let alone how to report it. That puts a lot of pressure on the folks of any race to compensate for those obvious weak links in the newsroom.
Blame? Blame?
ReplyDeleteEveryone always wants someone or something to blame for whatever. Sometimes shit just happens. That's why someone came up with that bumper sticker.
Shit happens. Period. Deal with it or go see a therapist.
Rarely does shit just happen. It's a bumper sticker because it appeals to a bumper sticker mentality that includes people who don't want to take responsibility or hold others accountable for failures. Unless it's an act of nature or God, people are generally behind most things that go wrong. Take the economy for instance, and by extension, layoffs, bailouts, foreclosures, etc. People are behind the mess we're in. It didn't just happen. Oh, and the environment. Think people had something to do with that too. And so on, so forth. It's time society start holding human beings accountable. Time parents start parenting again instead of just being friends with their little "buddies." Shit doesn't just happen. People make it or allow it to happen, and those people need to pay a price without being excused or deflecting blame to others.
ReplyDeleteIn Gannett -- or any declining business -- failures, greed, neglect, horrible decisions both big and small, terrible hires, etc., all led to where we are at. Lots of people on all levels remained silent and allowed all sorts of injustices to occur around them because they were getting paid. They thought by remaining silent and not rocking the boat, they'd be safe. Well, they were wrong. By remaining silent and not standing shoulder to shoulder with those who tried to blow the whistle on occasion, now everyone is in jeopardy of losing their jobs.
Point is, people can control much of what goes on in life. They can't do much about cancer and heart disease except to watch what they eat and donate to good causes and research, but they can speak up when wrongs are committed. If some longtime Gannett employees were keeping track of all the abuses they've witnessed in their careers, and did nothing about, it would fill a book.
I understand this isn't a company that favors people speaking out, but to just say shit happens is not really taking full responsibility for the problems we now face as a company, country and planet. Until people stand up and report things that don't look right, regain some backbone and values, things will continue to spiral downward. Sometimes you have to put your own ass on the line for the greater good. And if enough people did that, the risk to them would be far less. Strength in numbers!
It's time Gannett employees start confronting wrongs head on. Stop turning the other way when your cubemate is unjustly punished, laid off or otherwise abused. If it can happen to them today, it can happen to you tomorrow, regardless of how hard you try to remain invisible. How many folks watched the hundreds of people laid off in December get laid off, some very unfairly and for the wrong reasons, and said nothing to the powers that be? Well, it's going to happen again if you don't all gather some strength, organize and not let managers get rid of people for personal reasons, or because they are too old, or too young, or whatever.
Shit does NOT just happen. We allow it to happen more often than not.
The GCI executive committee and upper management are to blame. They've been more concerned about the Board than taking care of GCI and its employees.
ReplyDeleteWhat we all have to accept is the world has changed. People under 40 have opted to get tehir news online or on tv. They have rejected print. You could make every change you can think of to the print product and ultimately it will fail. People don't want it anymore. I am sure if there was a Blog when Ford introduced the Model T, all the buggy employees would have blamed the leadership. But friends, they were in the buggy business not the car business. An innovator came up with the car and killed an entire industry. People did not want buggies anymore. Print is the buggy. Gary Watson and Sue Clark-Johnson rejected the web in speech after speech to employees. They made it clear to everyone that we were a Newspaper company. They can deny it all they want but employees heard their message for a decade. When it became apaprent that the web was for real, it was too late.
ReplyDeleteBottom line, we are not an internet company. Sad but true.