Sunday, April 26, 2009
Sunday | April 26 | Your News & Comments
Can't find the right spot for your comment? Post it here, in this open forum. Real Time Comments: parked here, 24/7. (Earlier editions.)
69 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)
Jim, are you going to do better today than you did yesterday? You can't possibly do much worse.
ReplyDeleteNot first, but I second what he/she said.......How bout a whole day of ``What I'm doing now'' headshots.....no pun intended and not that there's anything wrong with that......
ReplyDeleteCan we please discuss Gannett, in Jim's absence. I am tired of the sick comments that try to discredit this blog. Jim has worked too hard to make this a reputable source for Gannnett employees. Let stop the BS and move forward with creditable information. Enough with the gay bashing and stupid crap. We are all here for a reason and it isn't for stupid sick comments about dogs and Jim.
ReplyDeleteSure thing, Sparky.
ReplyDeleteSuits will never stoop low enough to try to give this Blog a bad reputation. They have no conscience, and no moral ethics. Jim will out the just and unjust, corporate goonies will post to make Jim look like the dull bulb.
ReplyDeleteWho do YOU believe? The same corporate ranks who refuse to answer your Cobra or other benefits questions?
Kool-aid collectivists....drink up...take mine, I'll let you.
"corporate goonies will post to make Jim look like the dull bulb"
ReplyDeleteHave you been reading today? Jim already took care of that part all by himself.
Have you been reading today? Jim already took care of that part all by himself.
ReplyDelete4/25/2009 11:00 PM
_______________________________
Obviously still thirsty.
``Jim will out the just and unjust, corporate goonies will post to make Jim look like the dull bulb........Kool-aid collectivists....drink up...take mine, I'll let you.''
ReplyDeleteJeez....Hey Jim; I have a better idea for you.....start a Church -- The Universalist of the Entitled Bashers of Anything -- then expand your obloviating to a myriad of other targets. But don't beg for money on your blog....make 'em pay to get in the door and learn how to board the spaceship.
Then, just sit back and watch the sheep roll in, whining about everyhing that happened along the way to get there.
Your income will pale to the paltry amount you're trying to get these entitled folks to send you now.
11:01:
ReplyDeleteHe made up a salary, then tried to get readers to correct the info for him. Then he posted about seeking information that's already available, followed by yet another backtracking job.
No one needs to mix up the Kool-Aid to see these things. You probably need to eat some brain food, though -- you seem to be pretty far behind.
April 25: A day that shall live in infamy for Jim.
ReplyDeleteApril 25: The day Jim boarded a plane and went to Washington to play with little dogs barking up the heels and stirring up all the other bitches to bite the big dogs on Tuesday.
ReplyDeleteGotta admit, it's cute.
He's stuck in the butt-smelling stage.
ReplyDeleteSome of you posters are getting very gross. Go post "gross" somewhere else.
ReplyDeleteGo fuck yourself.
ReplyDeleteJim, do you play darts? Maybe someone can hit you with one. You've made yourself a target with all of your missteps.
ReplyDeleteYou should add a correction feature where you can admit all of your mistakes and then try to start fresh.
What missteps?
ReplyDeleteIf you don't like the "what I'm doing," just go on to the next post. Don't clutter the blog with your personal distaste for something lighter.
If you can do a Gannett blog better, for goodness sakes go at it. Blogspot allows anyone to do it ... for free!
I am increasingly amazed at how flamers insist on intruding into what is a pretty exciting community of journalists and other newspaper employees, in and out of Gannett, who gather here to hash out their lives and careers.
Bug off, naysayers.
You're probably the kind of people that got the company in its current dreadful state with no ideas about bringing it back to its former luster.
REading the posts leading up to 11 p.m., it comes to mind that these people were sitting at home, drunk and fearful for their jobs, unable to articulate their anxiety in other manner but berating a person who has never done a thing to them except feel uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteBring on the dachshunds. Ask questions of corporate. Tickle the conscience of a newspaper that chose a meanie for its person of the year and aided and abetted his bully tactics.
We love it!
We want more!
Anyone have infomation of the Police & Haz Mat crew visiting the Asbury Park Press home delivery warehouse in Neptune (main building) this morning.
ReplyDeleteApparently someone complained of chemical smell, possibly related to removal of old ink/chemical storage vat.
Tara Connell is muffdiving Gracia Martore while she is getting a nasty Sanchez from Dubow
ReplyDeleteWhat's with Buchanan getting the USAT job? I thought it was Anger.
ReplyDeleteJim: Keep up the good work. The corporate hacks are out in full force and doing all they can to try and discredit this blog. Sure, there have been missteps but no one can refute that we find information on this blog that is not communicated to the masses. Gone is corporate's ability to control and manipulate information and that's why they're running scared.
ReplyDeleteRegarding yesterday's discussion about benefits% costs, I'm in management and the average cost of employee benefits is 20%. It used to be 25% but Gannett's done a marvelous job of butchering benefits over the last 10 years+. So a $40,000 salary would average another $8,000 in benefits. And the average salary in the newspaper group is $47,000.
ReplyDeleteIn answer to the naysayers questioning the result of Jim's Gannett Foundation stories, this effort forced the Foundation to limit the value of grants senior executives can seize and donate to their pet charities. At a time when they're freezing our salaries, buying us out, laying us off and killing the printed product, this move to limit what the fat cats can do with the company's money would never have occurred had it not been for this blog and Jim's stories.
ReplyDeleteI posted this question yesterday and really need an answer. Obviously, I am not a reporter!
ReplyDeleteIf a reporter is writing an article about a church, and the reporter has obtained confidential information about the pastor (damaging but nothing illegal) and refuses to name his source, is he allowed to print this article?
Thanks!
Jim: the annual meeting format will give you 3 minutes at a time to comment and pose questions. If you're unable to complete all you want to say in those 3 minutes, you go to the back of the line of questioners and wait to follow-up after those ahead of you get their turn. Don't be intimidated by these bullies, especially Martore, the biggest bully of all. Even though Dubow will be at the lecturn there's no reason why you couldn't pose financial questions directly to Martore. She's really running this company (into the ground) and most of the expense slashing was hatched in that miserly big brain of hers. She knows spreadsheets real well but doesn't know a damn thing about how to actually run a profit center or how to instill loyalty or commitment from employees. Dubow and Martore are two of the worst possible leaders we could have at this critical time in our industry. Jim, you are the voice of so many who can't speak for fear of losing their jobs. How can we keep the newspaper viable if we layoff reporters with long established sources who cover local issues important to the community? Why do we move publishers and general managers in and out of our newspapers and broadcast stations instead of establishing longterm commitments and relationships in those communities? After all the expense cuts we've been forced to accept how can anyone justify hiring two compensation consultants to make certain the highest paid in company don't have to sacrifice as much as the rest of us? How do we expect readers to trust our web products if we'll rollover and divulge their names whenever some person in power gets their panties in a bunch? Libel is one thing and anonymity cannot protect lies but last time i checked, free speech was still a constitutional right and if someone wants to call a politician fat it's not kind but it sure as heck ain't libel. Can't wait to watch the live webcast Jim. Don't be afraid, these jerks feed off fear. But you have the backing of thousands who can't speak for themselves and that's a righteous power these hacks will never know.
ReplyDelete"Regarding yesterday's discussion about benefits% costs, I'm in management and the average cost of employee benefits is 20%."
ReplyDeleteThat's much less than the 50 percent figure that was thrown around here yesterday.
Using the logic from earlier in the thread, this proves the "naysayers" serve a purpose.
It's just like when Jim was attempting to be a reporter. He probably needed a lot of guidance and corrections. The same applies here.
Jim, do not let the idiots here get to you. Go Jimmy, go Gannett Blog.
ReplyDeleteAnd remember my candidacy for the board of directors seat.
ClarkKentGannett@aol.com
"Jim, do not let the idiots here get to you."
ReplyDeleteYou mean the people who are correcting his mistakes? Those are "idiots"?
I'd say that term applies better to someone who made up a salary figure and a benefits percentage out of thin air.
10:30am
ReplyDeleteNot if the church is a key advertiser which now means spends
$100 every other month.
So Jim got the salary/benefits info wrong. Have you ever been wrong about anything? Lighten up. I just read a comment from someone in management who gave us the accurate benefits metric at 20%and the average salary in the newspaper division at $47,000. That's why this blog and what Jim does is so important. It fleshes out the detail and bring people from all different job categories to a place where we can share what we know. Get over yourself. This blog is a good thing and no amount of Jim bashing is going to stop the truth from being exposed. Ha Ha, can't do a damn thing about that now can you?!
ReplyDeleteNewzHound, thanks for your comments at 8 a.m. I, and I sense many others, still appreciate the thoughtful conversations that occur here. I just step over the nasty and homophobic posters and hope the next post is worth reading.
ReplyDelete"I, and I sense many others, still appreciate the thoughtful conversations that occur here."
ReplyDeleteHAHAHA!
I appreciate the daily laughter this blog provides. Most of you should write for sitcoms. There is some funny shit on this site.
"Ha Ha, can't do a damn thing about that now can you?!"
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you're laughing about. The correct numbers came when Jim was proved wrong and called out. If that had not happened, the incorrect numbers would still be the focus of the discussion.
And he didn't just get them wrong. He made them up.
"I appreciate the daily laughter this blog provides. Most of you should write for sitcoms. There is some funny shit on this site."
ReplyDeleteJim writes gladiator epics.
10:30 a.m.: Before exploring the dubious ethics of publishing unconfirmed info from a source who insists on anonymity, I suggest thinking about accuracy. Why would you want to risk being wrong on this issue? Once you find other people and documents supporting the original source, decide whether the material is worth publishing, and whether it would be fair to do so.
ReplyDelete"Before exploring the dubious ethics of publishing unconfirmed info from a source who insists on anonymity"
ReplyDeletePosting that at this site takes some balls. And ignorance.
This site thrives on what you just described.
I'm really, really sick and have swine flu but since I will get fired if I call in sick, I MUST go to work today and tommorow...see ya all soon...
ReplyDelete11:40:
ReplyDeleteShould we give a shit? We don't.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe whole tone of most of the posts on this blog is the No. 1 reason why I think the Internet is becoming the Great Satan. Morons who kept to themselves for centuries now can go anywhere and post any crap they feel like, and for what? To share their lack of intellect, compassion, empathy, I could go on...so like I do when the moronic commercials come on television, I hit the MUTE button. Better still, I simply don't even turn it on. And I'm making a prediction here: that with this recent craigslist predator case getting traction, millions of people young and not so young are going to slowly slowly turn away from being 100% connected 24/7 and go back to real, not virtual, communication. I hope newspapers can survive in the meantime.
ReplyDelete@10:03 a.m. So, benefits are 20%; what about the company's payroll taxes? Social Security, Medicare, Federal and State unemployment?
ReplyDelete@11:09 p.m.: Jim guessed high in coming up with an average cost per employee in Ithaca, as part of a thought exercise, when his point would have been strengthened had he guessed lower. That doesn't change the math: dividing Craig Dubow's $875,000 bonus by a lower average employee cost would have yielded a higher number of Ithaca and Elmira employees that could have been saved (Say, 20 employees, instead of the 14 and a half that Jim's estimate suggested.)
Those who try to discredit Jim because his salary estimate was high (or made up, or whatever you choose to call it) are just promoting a red herring fallacy by ignoring that he could have come up with a result that would have made Dubow look worse if he had better numbers in the equation. Fortunately, many of us are journalists, and we are good at spotting fallacious arguments.
11:40:
ReplyDeleteIf your name is Tara or Gracia, you just have flu.
"Needs an answer" at 10:30 a.m. asked:
ReplyDelete"If a reporter is writing an article about a church, and the reporter has obtained confidential information about the pastor (damaging but nothing illegal) and refuses to name his source, is he allowed to print this article?"
That depends on what you mean by "allowed." If you mean legally, the First Amendment gives his employer the right to print anything it pleases without prior restraint. Of course, the publisher can be sued if it turns out the article was libelous or could be construed as an invasion of privacy.
But if you mean, will the newspaper allow a reporter to base a story on an unnamed source, the answer in a Gannett newsroom likely would be no. Gannett's Principles of Ethical Conduct for Newsrooms usually prohibits local stories based on anonymous sources, although exceptions can be made.
However, if an anonymous source provides legal documents or other hard evidence of damaging information that can be corroborated, the newspaper is not obligated to disclose how it obtained the documents.
I hope that answers your question.
"Fortunately, many of us are journalists, and we are good at spotting fallacious arguments."
ReplyDeleteThat's funny, 2:12. You certainly weren't very good at seeing through the inflated 50 percent figure. Or at pointing out that Jim was seeking information that's available online. Or that the Wausau incident is not a "disaster."
4/26/2009 3:18 PM
ReplyDeletePerfect!
Absolutely perfect.
Thank you.
why are we even talking about someone who is not here?
ReplyDeletehe as worked too hard to make this a reputable source source for gannett employees
so please dont' discredit him like this.
who are these nuts writing in? their posts make no sense.
ReplyDeletethey write from their lizard brains, lower function.
I like Jim and I respect gay men. they are open-minded. Gannett was lucky to have him as long as they did.
For people posting from all sorts of points of views today, may I offer these thoughts that, though not originally written about journalism, could apply anyway:
ReplyDeleteThis is the true joy in life, being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; being a force of nature instead of a feverish, selfish little clod of ailments and grievances, complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy. I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community and as long as I live, it is my privilege to do for it what I can. I want to be thoroughly used up when I die, for the harder I work, the more I live. I rejoice in life for its own sake. Life is no brief candle to me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I have got hold of for the moment and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to future generations.
-- George Bernard Shaw
I offer this up, found on the way to researching something else, of course, since the once-guiding newspaper philosophy,
"Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," seems no longer in vogue per Poynter and one publisher who derided my use of the phrase during a discussion and later fired me.
REading the posts leading up to 11 p.m., it comes to mind that these people were sitting at home, drunk and fearful for their jobs, unable to articulate their anxiety in other manner but berating a person who has never done a thing to them except feel uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteCongratulation - you hit the nail on the head. It's funny, when Jim suddenly comes closer (i.e. visiting headquarters) the Kool-Aid drinkers come out in full force. Anxiety is one word - fear is another. What are they all so afraid of that they try to slam Jim into submission? And once the meeting is over they disappear into hiding! LOL! What a team and the sad part is: that's all upper management that should bring us innovation and insight. Man, the newspaper is really bend on going down the drain!
5:27: Do you live in a commune? What's the range on your pitchfork?
ReplyDeleteMy mistake 5:27. The previous post was in response to 5:23.
ReplyDelete5:27:
ReplyDeleteIt's funny how when Jim screws up a bunch of times in a matter of hours, then people post criticism of him.
Imagine that.
In answer to the naysayers questioning the result of Jim's Gannett Foundation stories, this effort forced the Foundation to limit the value of grants senior executives can seize and donate to their pet charities.
ReplyDelete4/26/2009 10:11 AM
How did Jim's post change the law? I don't think so and I'd love to see something where those laws were changed.
Nothing changed.
I'd love to see that proof, too.
ReplyDeleteOh, wait -- people here just post bullshit and then hope no one notices or calls them on it.
Jim has changed nothing for the better. If anything, he has created an environment where liars and dimwits can thrive.
designer bags said...
ReplyDeletewhy are we even talking about someone who is not here?
he as worked too hard to make this a reputable source source for gannett employees
so please dont' discredit him like this.
4/26/2009 4:01 PM
I am laughing my ass off right now. Reputable source for employees? Not on your life unless you want to make up shit and then when something just so happens to actually happen you can say "look, see, I told you."
Jim does this stuff because he is angry at Gannett and this is therapy for him. He certainly doesn't do it for the money and he sure doesn't personally knw many of the 40,000+ Gannett employees and especially doesn't know the anonymous people posting on this blog.
But he sure has you convinced.
This is 5:23 again - yes, I live on a commune, they took me in when my severance ran out. I rigged my pitchfork as an antenna so I can connect to the internet now through the free wi-fi at the organic co-op down the dirt road from here. Thanks for asking.
ReplyDeleteSigned,
Adpative Woodstock Generation Journalist
5:23, LOL... I appreciate your humor.
ReplyDelete"If anything, he has created an environment where liars and dimwits can thrive."
ReplyDeleteNo, that already exists at 7950 Jones Branch Dr. in McLean.
No, that already exists at 7950 Jones Branch Dr. in McLean.
ReplyDelete4/26/2009 6:53 PM
___________________________________
ROFLMMFAO
And the troll claims there are no facts or truth posted on this blog.
How wrong they were.
To 6:01 and 6:03pm - I didn't say the "law" had been changed. Gannett management changed the policy for its executives to access Foundation monies. Jim: have Tara send you the revised guidelines so these doubting Thomases can feel better and accept, no matter how grudgingly that this blog has made a difference. Then keep up the work Jim. The trolls will still troll but the truth will win out and we'll all have a ring side seat to see it unfold. I love free speech and I love this blog!
ReplyDeleteNo need, 9 pm: I reported the change already: Executives must now get by on a philanthropy allowance of $15,000 vs. $20,000. (it was buried in a foonote in the new proxy.)
ReplyDeleteHow in the world will Wellesley College survive without Gracia's generosity?! And you just know Denise must be madder than a wet hen!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWow, 9:29. You might want to check your medicine cabinet; I think you skipped a dose or two.
ReplyDeleteJim:
ReplyDeleteBoy, does the heat and humidity of the East Coast - especially after this weekend, and it's only April - make you glad you're in Northern CA, or what?
Wow, do all you haters work for GCI? You aren't doing a very good job of convincing me that this is a company with which I should remain associated, as an employee or as a shareholder.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTHE ELMIRA SPIN:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.stargazette.com/article/20090426/VIEWPOINTS/904260329/1121
ENJOY
@3:18 p.m.
ReplyDeleteThat's funny, 2:12. You certainly weren't very good at seeing through the inflated 50 percent figure.What is there to "see through"? You are aware that the inflation makes a larger divisor in the equation, making the final result lower than it could have been, are you not? Do you reject all estimates on the basis that they are estimates? Or do you worship red herrings?
Or at pointing out that Jim was seeking information that's available online.What does this have to do with the veracity of what Jim posts? So he doesn't use google as much as we would like. I see you are also a fan of the fallacious argumentum ad hominem.
Or that the Wausau incident is not a "disaster."That's a matter of opinion. It is neither provable nor disprovable. Most educated people understand this.
11:03:
ReplyDeleteSomehow I doubt you understand much beyond the level of Dick and Jane.
Yes, we realize that Jim's made-up figure is higher than the real individual salary. Um, that's the point, Einstein. He made up a figure that was nowhere near the truth, then asked the readers to bail him out.
And if you can't figure out why it's a problem that Jim is ranting about information that's already available or hasn't even been filed yet, then you need some serious lessons.