Gannett Foundation Executive Director Tara Connell told me there's no formal name for the fake philanthropy program available to select current and former company executives. So, creative readers, help me come up with a name for this boondoggle of a Corporate perq.
Use this link to e-mail your reply; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the sidebar, upper right. Or leave a note in the comments section, below.
Friday, March 28, 2008
13 comments:
Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hint: I'm looking for something a bit more creative than, say, Executive Slush Fund!
ReplyDeleteHint No. 2: USA Today's new slogan -- "We're all in this together" -- clearly would not work, either!
ReplyDeletePiss Poor Philanthrophy.
ReplyDeletePetty Poop Philanthrophy.
Pretty Poor Poop Philanthropy.
Apologies to Cherry Hill. Next year put in for a janitor. Maybe Craig can send some money to The Donald to help Atlantic City out.
A clever Gannettoid just e-mailed me this suggestion: "How about 'GREED,' Gannett Reserve for Excessive Executive Donations?"
ReplyDelete"LITTLE AL" Name after the founder of a certain Gannett's paper> Because of Little Al, Gannett had to basically start a new foundation, with 'NEW RULES".
ReplyDeleteBravo - I love it and doesn't it describe the fund very truthfully?
ReplyDeleteLOL!
Jim- I'm worried. This blog has gone from a few whining editorial employees mediated by you to a dangerous forum to twist facts fueled by you. If you're trying to effect change at Gannett, you need to more closely monitor the comments. The value of your reporting is diminished by the quality of the comments (which appear to mostly be provided by editorial employees). But maybe the quality of your reporting is diminished by, well, the quality of your reporting. Getting people all fired up about giving money to charity is not exactly Woodward and Bernstein material. Time to find a real story and move on.
ReplyDeleteMy clever title synaps is stunted. I still haven't recovered from learning that Gannett GAVE newspapers to the Foundation and then the Foundation sold them cheap to generate funds for its lap-of-luxury, insider charity operations.
ReplyDeleteI am totally disillusisoned. Emotionally striken. Saddened beyond repair.
[She gracefuly collapses on swooning bench, her arm falling to the floor, spilling her glass of fine wine and staining the tastefully patterend area rug.]
Anon@7:51 I appreciate your thoughts about comments. Unlike most Gannett newspapers, I moderate all the comments on this blog. Recently, in fact, I switched commenting back to the way it was when I first launched Gannett Blog: Now, I read all comments before they appear in public. I spike those that involve unnecessarily personal attacks on individuals.
ReplyDeleteAs to your point about charity and whether this is a "real story" -- well, trust me, Corporate is treating this like a real story -- as it should.
Oh, it's a "real" story folks.
ReplyDeleteSpecial Optional Benefits Fund (S.O.B. Fund, for short)
ReplyDeleteAnother good one!
ReplyDeleteWhat about The DIG?
ReplyDeleteDonations Improperly Given