On my post seeking names for the newly uncovered executive "charity" program, a reader says: "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."Join the debate, in the original post.
People who accuse others of twisting facts without citing a single example aren't worth listening to.
ReplyDeletePeople who are the subject of real investigative reports would love nothing more than for the reporter to go away and work on something else.
ReplyDeleteBravo, Jim! Keep up the good work!
You struck a nerve. Go, Jim!
ReplyDeleteHere's the thing: I've read a lot about the market crash of 1929 and the panic that led to it. I've watched the mob mentality in all sorts of reporting situations. Now I'm seeing it in the staff at our local paper.
ReplyDeleteMomentum has turned the tide from people who went to work to be productive and be a part of the best product they could create to this frenzied "What's gonna happen next?" stage. Everybody I know and speak openly with is looking for another job or even praying for a buyout, doing what they can do to abandon ship. Seems most have realized the company won't be loyal to them, so why be loyal to the company?
There's this strange omnipresent feeling that "something's about to happen." And whatever it is won't be good. How long can any organization operate in that state?
How can this not be a good story?
ReplyDeleteSenior management’s willingness to repeatedly stretch the foundation’s generosity beyond the spirit of what it was created for, for their own self-interest, easily raises more than a few questions about the decision making, character and personal ethics of those who lead Gannett.
Plus, it’s likely that some have benefited personally from these actions (Curley, etc.?), which may ultimately be the larger, yet untold story here.
is it any wonder my coworkers and i have no respect for top management? "charity" doesn't begin at home, with decent pay for the gannett staffers covering 2 or 3 jobs.
ReplyDeleteworse yet, pooling donations from our pay (which has shrunk in real dollars) to help a dying coworker doesn't rate a gannett match, but a place like wellesley, which has a huge endowment fund and no journalism program, can receive the largesse of the foundation, and a top gannett exec gets credit for being generous without having to spend a dime.
did these people take lessons from enron and worldcom execs?
please keep holding their feet to the fire.