For most of 1992, I kept a huge and painful secret from my colleagues at the Statesman, where I worked as an editor from 1991 to 1996. My domestic partner, Danny Bryant, had moved to Boise with me. But we hid his presence from all but a few because he had AIDS, and in politically conservative Idaho, we feared the worst in people's reactions. (I was fortunate to remain HIV-negative.)
Danny (left) was 37 when he died on Oct. 12, 1992 -- barely 10 months after he had arrived. But it would be another year before I told our story: of taking care of him during the last months, how lonely that was. The Statesman published it one Sunday, in a piece that took up most of three pages. Over the next week, I received nearly 150 letters, cards and phone calls. A Boise State University graduate student adapted the story for a two-act play, which was produced and which I watched. (The actor playing me was pretty good!) A woman called me at my desk, began speaking -- then suddenly burst into tears. Her son had died of AIDS, and she had no one to talk to. The Associated Press moved the entire story across the Rocky Mountain wire.And yet, I was lucky. The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association had launched two years before Danny died. In pre-Internet Idaho, NLGJA and its annual conventions were a personal and professional lifeline for me. My friend David Tuller reminded me of this when I told him recently that the Gannett Foundation had given money to NLGJA. David is a founder of the group. I asked him to guess how much the foundation gave in 2001-06, based on its public tax returns.
"$1,000,'' he said.
"Try $107,000,'' I replied.
We were both surprised, and perhaps you are, too. But beyond the obvious (that's a lot of money!) it's all the more interesting because it shows foundation officials may have been working at cross purposes with top management on a sensitive issue at the time.
NLGJA's big cause in newsrooms was winning domestic partner benefits. Gannett was one of the last major media outfits to offer the benefit, starting in January 2002. Privately, some gay employees blamed the delay on a member of the board of directors, suspected of finding the benefit immoral. (In fact, if that person existed, I think it could have been a particular senior executive who left the company in 2003 or 2004.)I don't know whether foundation officials were consciously supporting a group they knew was lobbying for a benefit a top executive opposed. Maybe it was all a fluke. But that financial support benefited a group that helped me once, so I'm grateful to the foundation for its past and any future support.
Plenty of you will disagree with me on the foundation's NLGJA support. Hold your thoughts, though, until I've posted on the upcoming Unity: Journalists of Color convention this July -- and the six-figure Gannett Foundation support it got in the past.
Can't wait? Your thoughts, in the comments section, below. Use this link to e-mail feedback, tips, snarky letters, etc. See Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the green sidebar, upper right.
Now I expect you to apologize to he executive management team that you have spent the last few weeks berating over teh foundation. Many of the executives also donate to charities outside of the gannett foundation that support causes like this and others that affect people victims of cancer, leukemia, diabetes and other diseases.
ReplyDeleteConsider yourself fortunate Jim and be thankful.
Oh and by the way...YOU ARE WELCOME!!!
Uh, nope!
ReplyDelete(People leave the strangest condolence notes.)
ReplyDeleteSorry for your loss Jimmy. I am also sorry for your alternative lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteWhoo, boy: Here we go!
ReplyDeleteJim - You know there are small-minded, mean-spirited, kool-aid drinking people out there who will do and say what they can to hurt you - that would be you, anon 8:04 p.m. and 8:24 p.m.
ReplyDeleteBut Jim, even though I don't know you personally, I hope - and even pray - that you don't let said s-m-m-s-k-d-p of this world get to you even for a minute. They show their true colors when you write something personal and heartfelt and that's when they take the opportunity to pounce.
People. When will you learn that it all works out better for everyone - even including s-m-m-s-k-ds - when you do right? Jim is going on out a ledge to expose ugliness that a bully company has done (and seemingly continues to do).
Yes, those of us who are unhappy with the direction of things can quit, but we can also do our best to do the right thing and try to make this a decent company to work for. Maybe that's impossible at this point, but for now, some of us will continue airing our grievances, doing the jobs of four people and drawing our paychecks.
I am a Gannett employee. I have a story very similar to Jim's, except that I shared my situation with the company before they recruited me.
ReplyDeleteI have always been very impressed by the sincerity of the company's commitment to diversity. I felt strangely inspired by the candor of the rationale, too: 1. it's the right thing to do, and, the primary motive, 2. diversity in people and coverage improves long-term profit.
Once or twice a year I get recruitment offers by one or another company, usually offering a LOT more money (but often less security). A key reason why I've stayed where I am is that when I probe those companies, I don't find them as diversity-friendly as Gannett, and if you're someone as stubborn as I am, there's no sense going to a company where you don't fit in.
I miss the idealism of Gannett's old motto: "A world of different voices where freedom sings." I was proud to work at a company with that motto.
Please translate s-m-m-s-k-d-p?
ReplyDeleteIn the commenters opening graph ... s-m-m-s-k-d-p refers to small-minded, mean-spirited, kool-aid drinking people
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, I don't think you can paint anyone or any company with one color brush. There are good people, and there are greedy people who occasionally do some good, even if it is unintentional. Not all is bad with Gannett, and as long as we still keep fighting for what we believe in, along with helping those outside the company point a spotlight at the problems, hopefully all our hard work won't go for naught.
The following was written by an Anonymous reader; I hit the "reject'' button when I met to hit "publish," so I'm publishing it now, under my own name:
ReplyDeleteHi Jim,
It is brutal, but you bring all his upon yourself. You are now a public figure as a blogger (at least public in the Gannett world). Too bad for you there is another side to an opinion. You can't have it both ways by blogging about people (sometimes right and sometimes wrong) and not expect to be taken to the mat too.
When you are so visceral in your attacks against good people, you might find that people will wait to pounce on you as soon as you show any weakness.
Furthermore, since you moderate your blog, I am sure there are lot of attacks about your credibility that you choose not to post.
I am truly sorry about your loss and for those of you who read this blog, I am equally sorry for your losses, be it friend, financial or physical.
On the face of it, the Gannett Foundation has done some very good things for many. Could they do more? absolutely.
I hope the donations to the Potomac School or other questionable areas helps an underprivileged child become a better citizen. I hope it used to teach people to be more sensitive to business as well.
I have worked at Gannett through many cycles and I am sure we will become a better organization by making some tough decisions that won't be popular among the "rank and file".
Note, regarding the above: I've published ALL comments about me, no matter what they said. In fact, the only comments I can recall rejecting were personal attacks on management; I don't think I've ever rejected a pro-management comment.
ReplyDelete