Heiress Brooke Astor (left) donated $195 million in family wealth to New York City museums and libraries, boys' and girls' clubs, nursing homes, homeless shelters and other charities benefiting the weak and poor. Retired Gannett CEO Doug McCorkindale (right) used Gannett Foundation money to, well, burnish his own self-image.Use this link to e-mail feedback, tips, snarky letters, etc. See Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the sidebar, upper right. Or leave a note in the comments section, below.
Come on Jim. How much do you know about how she conducted her business? Are you willing to bet your Gannett severance that she has never done anything that would give you pause? Have you gone through DM's tax returns? Can you tell us all how much he has given of his own money? The answer is that you don't have any idea of how these folks are really conducting the entirely of their lives. You made your point a could of days ago. It was and is interesting. But your continued drum-beating makes makes me want to lump you in with radio talk show hosts. Take a tiny bit of truth, yell about it with your hair on fire, blow it up until you no longer are in touch with reality. You're off the deep end now.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct about the following: I cannot say how much Doug McCorkindale has given of his own money, because the tax returns available to me only deal with the foundation's money. But I disagree with your contention that this pattern of self-dealing is a "tiny bit of truth.'' Nearly $424,000 that could have been given back to Gannett communities is not tiny.
ReplyDeleteI stand by "tiny." If the $33M figure is correct - the web site says they gave over $10M last year - then you are talking about barely over 1 percent. Should this exec program exist? OK so say it's bad, the policy changes and you win a Blogizter or something. Each Gannett community would get, on average, $1500 or something. Fine. Meanwhile, the "patient" -- Gannett -- is fighting for it's life and you, figuratively, have been thumping your chest over curing its nail fungus. Congrats.
ReplyDeleteThis boondoggle reflects on the character and judgment of the executives in charge of saving Gannett. CEO Craig Dubow and CFO Gracia Martore love to talk about fiscal discipline and shared sacrifice. Yet, given the chance to return Gannett Foundation money to the communities that have made them rich, they instead directed $85,000 to their alma maters -- far, far from any Gannett community. And that wasn't all, I now know, after going through the foundation's tax returns for 1997-2003.
ReplyDeleteAlso, regarding that $33 million figure cited by foundation Executive Director Tara Connell: I'm relying on figures provided by the foundation in its public federal tax returns.
You know for someone who says he has no ax to grind with Gannett, your blog posts for the past month could've fooled me.
ReplyDeleteA thought out loud, directed at no one in particular: I understand why employees who write negative comments about management do so anonymously; they'd be disciplined, or even fired. But why do seemingly pro-management readers post comments anonymously? (This isn't a snarky question; I really would like to know the reasons.)
ReplyDeleteWhy do you brand anyone who disagrees with you "pro-management"? It is not even remotely possible that you might be exercising bad judgment? Is it possible that you, Jim, might actually be wrong now and again? Name-calling those who disagree with you is in the great tradition of McCarthyism. Great work.
ReplyDeleteStop picking on Jim - or giving management any ideas about his severance. He is doing exactly the right thing. If you don't think so, go take a look at the Newseum, which had an open house for USA TODAY folks today. Now, I'm no Al Neuharth cheerleader but what his Freedom Forum has created there will do more for the cause of a free press and democracy than anything Gannett will ever do with its foundation money. As a Gannett employee, I was ashamed that I could find no gallery sponsored by the biggest newspaper company. Knight, Bloomberg, News Corp.... No Gannett. Still bad blood there? Perhaps. But it just points up the difference between those who have vision and those who do not.
ReplyDeleteAnon@3:26 p.m.: Indeed, I'm often wrong. However, I don't think I've ever branded anyone "pro-management" just because they disagreed with me (although many of my readers have done so). That would be just plain dumb.
ReplyDeleteSo, I'll repeat the question, which I'm addressing to EVERYONE, and not to anyone in particular: Why do seemingly pro-management readers post comments anonymously?
Well, not being one I can't speak with any authority. But it seems to me that management types are just as afraid of retribution as their underlings.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, if they post here and don't give their ID, nobody at corporate or in the publisher's office is aware that they READ the Gannett blog.
Pro-management people are running just as scared as everyone else and when you uncover worms under the horse poop, it doesn't help their sense of security.
Fire away, Jim. Thanks for letting us fire away anon, too.
No ax to grind but it sure is slanted “blogage”. This line of reasoning, or lack thereof, is wrong in so many directions it doesn’t deserve the label of coverage.
ReplyDeleteFirst, you're comparing a wealthy individual’s family donation to a corporate donation. Could that be like comparing true journalism to a blogger? Do you have any clue how much money Doug or Gracia gave out of their own pocket and to whom? Of course not! So this obvious slant is nothing more than a personally motivated rant.
Second, the amount of money being singled out is such a small piece it’s the equivalent of drinking a glass of water out of the ocean. It may be true that the donations you have singled out could be used for other purposes but just who appointed you as the “all seeing eye”. Most of us have no problem with corporate leadership designating foundation money to the universities you’ve singled out. It may just be that some truly remarkable individual comes along, from Penn State or one of the other schools, who benefited from that donation and chose to make a difference and help us shape the future of the company and the industry.
Third, the foundation gives millions to charities of all kinds. Most are directed towards local groups in the newspapers communities. Each newspaper selects need-worthy local, I repeat, LOCAL, organizations that are in need and coordinates donations through the foundation. Others are directed towards groups that employees designate, through the matching program, and are not required to be local. There are no major strings attached and the money can be directed to the organizations we deem important, such as local charities, alma maters, etc. They don't have to be local and in fact, many of us give to our alma maters, even through they aren't in our community. As a side note, some of us believe it's a nice way to show appreciation to the schools and educators that mentored us and helped us shape our futures.
Now here’s the challenge. Since you were once an employee, how much did you give to local charities utilizing the Gannett Matching program to aid them in a time of need? I wouldn’t dream of trying to report a number for you but my guess is it’s probably the equivalent of peeing on a forest fire.
Jim, why did you post anonymously before you quit Gannett?
ReplyDelete5:52 p.m. said: "Most of us have no problem with corporate leadership designating foundation money to the universities you’ve singled out."
ReplyDeleteI think most of us believe you're wrong.
How about a poll, Jim?
Hear, Hear! A poll will do the trick to take the temperature of "most of us." Who is "us" anyway?
ReplyDeleteAnon@7:18 p.m.: I blogged anonymously for four months, ending in early January, because I was often writing posts that were critical of Corporate. (I didn't make public anything written before September until early September; until then, it was all kept in draft mode.) Also, I didn't quit; I agreed to accept a buyout in lieu of a possible layoff. Technically, I am classified as an inactive employee.
ReplyDeleteThis has been a very interesting comment thread. But to be candid about the post that got it going, I just thought it would be amusing to see photos of two very, very different people, side by side; I never expected it would turn into such an interesting debate.
ReplyDeleteHere's the Gannett Blog Instapoll results, so no need for a poll! Of the approximately 100 foundation-related comments, at least 85 are on my side. Not a scientific sample, but an interesting snapshot of one group's sentiments.
ReplyDeleteOh, for heaven's sake. You had an interesting story a few days ago. They're wrapping fish in it now. Move on.
ReplyDeleteSince I started this thread: I like humor as much as the next person. So, you juxtapose Brooke and Doug. Fine. But you were "amusing" by being shitty to DM. I have high standards, and you are the closest thing to being fair and open about media, and Gannett in particular, that I have seen. So I ascribe high standards to you. And on this topic, I think you are thinking too narrowly, and taking cheap shots when you do not have facts to back it up. It was the "burnish his own self-image" line that put me over. You just have nothing to back that up.
ReplyDeleteIn answer to another question here: I doubt many here are strictly "pro-management." Too often, you and others try to make all things Gannett into black and white (and in my view, mostly black). But the market and the dynamics are REALLY challenging right now. Does the company have some dead wood? Sure. A bad top exec or two? Sure. Some arrogance? Sure. Some lousy rank and file workers? Sure. Some of anything you can name? Sure. It is just too easy, too black and white, to say all management is bad. A thoughtful, intelligent person could make an argument that "management" is doing well, because the situation could be MUCH worse (think Knight Ridder, or Bear Stearns). I am not making that argument, mind you. I would just like you, Jim, in particular, to be open to listening to such an argument. And too often, I don't perceive a willingness to listen.
On responding anonymously from a "pro-management" point of view: First, see the above graph; I think either "side" -- "pro-management" or AKA (anti-Kool Aid) -- is too simplistic. 2nd: Many managers, including upper ones that I know have decided that in garden variety disucssions like these, no news is good news. There is virtually no upside to naming yourself. And there is huge potential downside. So, post anonymously and try to further the discussions. We all have something to learn here. It is the same reason, responding to another persistent question of yours, why more managers are not flooding you with their "good works." Because they fear you and others will simply trash them, making a positive into a potential negative.
I can see both sides here. For one, I agree that not all managers at Gannett are bad. In fact, in my experience, there are some very good ones. There used to be even more. A lot of the better ones have chosen to leave because they did not see any progress and the changes being made were no more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
ReplyDeleteI think what you have uncovered with the foundation dollars is a real story. There is, I would bet, nothing illegal. But like so much of what Gannett seems to do lately, it seems immoral and unethical. Eithics and morals don't seem to matter much to the top echelon who have chosen to surround themselves with a very few so that they hear and see only what they feel comfortable with. Many in management, current and past, understand this. They also understand that there are three options. Option one is you can be a believer in what is being done to address the future. In my opinion that is not really a position because virtually nothing has happened in the last few years to clarify what the position is or where it will lead. Option two, you can pretend to believe, keep your head down, and "talk the talk" because it is what is wanted. Three, you can leave. As far as I can tell those are really the only options available. Perhaps this is no different from the options faced by those who worked for Enron, Bear Stearns, KR or other companies. Personally, I would have hoped for more and know many others who would have preferred other choices.
The biggest problem I see is that no one at the very top wants to hear what is really going on, or hear the concerns of people. I believe it is what will ultimately be the downfall of the company because when you only hear what is going well you begin to believe it. My experience has been that all is not well, that people have some very good ideas of what could and should be done. As I said earlier, these people have learned to keep their mouths shut and to pretend as though they love the emperor's new clothes.
Some of you think I'm too hard on Doug McCorkindale. But consider this: What role did he play in the infamous "Blue Ball" controversy, where three USA Today news staffers were fired in 2001 for defacing a sculpture outside his office? (See this American Journalism Review story for details: http://tinyurl.com/3cgotb)
ReplyDeleteCould he have been generous in forgiving them? You know: The same generosity he showed six months earlier -- when, at his direction, the Gannett Foundation gave $20,000 to his alma mater, Columbia University, according to public documents. The money went to the "Columbia College Fund -- Class of 1961 Technology Initiative."
Jim,
ReplyDeleteI think Gracia Martore has responded to your blog (see 3/29 5:52p post). It looks like she is reading this one very closely as she is the bitch in charge of the money at Gannett and I think this abuse of power might get her ass thrown out of here!
Your reporting is superb. Keep the pressure on them and maybe we will see a resignation from someone real soon!!!
The Newseum open house was for all Gannett employees in the area. And I have a question: wasn't the Newseum started with Gannett's money in the first place? Why would they give more money when the millions taken from Gannett Foundation in the first place founded the Newseum. I think that alone would entitle Gannett to a gallery....I could be wrong, please someone correct me if I am.
ReplyDelete