Sunday, April 05, 2009
Sunday | April 5 | 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.)
60 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)
The CEO of Bollinger Insurance recently received a $500,000 bonus. So, he gave his 434 employees, $1000 each. He said he did it because, without them, the company wouldn't be doing well or even in business for that matter.
ReplyDeleteThe article about his generosity went on to quote figures that in 2007, the average CEO was making roughly 275x what his employees were making. The article also stated that the average CEO makes more in one workday than low level employees make in a full YEAR.
I'm sure we can all agree. If someone goes through higher education and becomes a CEO, he deserves a good salary. There is no reason he shouldn't make more than his underlings. BUT, if the janitor doesn't keep the bathrooms clean, he gets fired. But if the company loses money, the CEO still gets his bonus?!?
Maybe Craigy should get some business/people management advice from this guy. Even if he had donated some of his bonus, think how many Gannett families could have benefitted.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteDubow doesn't even come to close to having the degree of class that this guy, and many, many others in industry have shown for years.
ReplyDeleteNeed proof? Look no further than what Dubow did with Gannett Foundation's funds to create charities in his own name.
Legally allowed? Yes. Classless? Absolutely.
We could take out a full page ad in USA TODAY with the headline: "Mr. Dubow, have you no shame?" and address his bonus. I'd contribute $30 or more, and I'd sign my name along with everyone else. (I'm not signing my name here because I prefer not to hang separately.) USA TODAY would most certainly decline to run it, making it all the more newsworthy.
ReplyDeleteUSA Today would not turn down running the ad beause it's REVENUE
ReplyDeleteThen let's find out. What would it take, 3,000 signatories kicking in $30 to pay for a full-page ad? I'm guessing there are at least that many people out there who are outraged not only by the size of Dubow's bonus but by the greed and lack of leadership that taking the bonus represents. What was even more galling was that immediately afterward Dubow ordered yet another unpaid furlough. Truly the man has no shame.
ReplyDeletegreat idea 12:45.. if USA Today woundnt run it try Wall Street JOurnal or New York TImes. I would chip in $30 bucks.
ReplyDeleteSomebody should tip off Romanenko and E&P that this idea is building steam; get it out there early.
ReplyDeleteTipping E & P/Romensko that what is building steam? Two posters mad at Gannett's CEO? Sounds like the ultimate in bad journalism--making up stories and passing them along - not good for this blog and certainly an indictment of the ethics of any poster who actually works in a newsroom. Perhaps time and effort might be better spent on figuring out the model that will get the entire industry -not just Gannett- out of a big ditch. If you want to give away $30, find a local charity that is making a difference for those distressed in your community.
ReplyDeleteI'm a December victim - and I would definitely chip in $30 even though I need it to feed my family!
ReplyDeleteThose 3,000 signatories would be out the door before the end of the day the ad ran (if that was in another paper), or sooner if it was submitted to USAT.
ReplyDeleteIn this climate, jobs are easily filled. Unless you have a Dublow-sized nest egg, don't be foolish with your livelihood.
Here's an update on the New York Times Co. threat to shut down the Boston Globe. There's no longer shame in slashing and burning. Expect that Gannett will not shy away from drastic "solutions" in this type of atmosphere.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090405/ap_on_bi_ge/nytimes_globe;_ylt=Al3T7ZE44vYOFnk_jg5t1UyyBhIF
So, 2:10, what is your better idea?
ReplyDeleteCount me in, I'll send the check for $30!
ReplyDeleteH
The ad sounds like a grand idea.
ReplyDeleteJim, please put the list of layoffs/job elimiations back up or on the right side of the page. Gannett is continuing to eliminate positions throughout the company. How many will be let go by the elimination of production at Pensacola and moving it to Mobile.
ReplyDeleteHow long before they start selling buildings and moving in to leased office space? I wouldn't be surprised to see them sell the building in Pensacola or others around the country.
How long before they outsource the entire circulation departments and have third parties responsible for all aspects of circulation....look for it to happen at certain markets.
Lordy, Lordy! There is some melodrama and fur flying on the lowly NJ Confidential blog while you remain here! Better hurry on over, y'all!
ReplyDelete2:53....half of Asbury Park Press Home Delivery whacked on Thursday (me one of them). Remaing Half will be killed off in the fall.
ReplyDeleteUm, 2:10, about 3,000 fine folks have already been sent packing. I bet a grand number of them would fork over the cash. And, as for signing our names to the ad? Like the saying goes, "Frankly, my dear, we don't give a damn."
ReplyDeleteI would bet you the amount it costs to run a full page ad, that a Gannett paper wouldn't run it.
ReplyDeleteI just read the Jersey postings. Some good points made there about many former co-workers no longer keeping in touch with previous layoff victims.
ReplyDeleteI do wonder: Do any of you actually MISS your former colleagues? Or do you only miss them because now you have absorbed their workloads?
How many people formerly employed have you even TRIED to keep in contact with? Many messages are communicated through a lack of action. As someone let go in a previous round, yes, I know of which I speak.
In all honesty, I have not made any effort to contact people cut by the economy. Please realize, though, after 25 years in the work force, I only speak with three former coworkers with any regularity. One of them I married.
ReplyDeleteSome people I've seen every working day for ten years. I like knowing them because it makes my time away from the job even better. I'm sure they feel the same way.
Some of the folks here need some professional help regarding their attachment issues. We're NOT friends! Sure, I laugh at your jokes and share my lunch. I offer to assist you, knowing some time I might need help. But we are brought together by circumstances, not because we had any mutual interests.
And when I leave, I'll forget your last name before the end of the year. You'll be busy teaching the new guy what 'Bill used to do'.
If you have a job title, someone either did the job before you got there or after you left. You might be unique and loved dearly by your friends and family. But here, at work? Sooner you realize you are a human asset working with other assets, the sooner you properly prioritize your home life over your work life.
Don't cry that nobody misses you. Cry because you care so much.
Even with 8.5% unemployment and 16% under/non/un employment, there's still a stigma to not having a job.
ReplyDeleteI'm not calling because I don't want your bad luck cooties on me.
And honestly, IF you have a way to get to the internet and IF you use that time to go chat up on a blog about your former employer, you're neither needy enough nor smart enough for me to waste my time with.
Obviously, you don't make or have "friends" if you are in the newspaper business.
ReplyDeleteAmazing idea to buy advertising space. I would enjoy coordinating and suggest the following:
ReplyDelete1. Aim higher: What about also buying The Wall Street Journal's home page banner ads on April 28, the day of Gannett's annual stockholder's meeting?
2. I suggest this be an appeal to stockholders and to the millions of Americans living in communities where Dubow & Co. are busy junking presses and selling off other assets.
3. Monday, I can call USA Today and WSJ advertising sales for prices; work up a budget and fundraising strategy to collect money.
4. Please start work now, on the advertising text you want. We need to reach a consensus ASAP, so we can see how far we can push the envelope regarding Dubow's $875,000 all-cash bonus?
5. How about this banner question:
Gannett Chairman Craig Dubow: Where is the public's $40,000 in Gannett Foundation money -- and why are you refusing to tell stockholders whether it got deposited in the Craig and Denise Dubow Scholarship Fund at Western Carolina University?
That Jersey stuff, and the recent hoax memo, are cruel, increibly cruel, and juvenile. But mostly cruel.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but the people who post stuff like that are the lowest form of intelligence.
In the early days of the Internet, everyplace was full of really vile stuff but it finally calmed down a bit and today even the most wild and wooly cyberplaces -- wrestling sites, biker sites, gore sites -- have some sense of community and standards.
Here is different. For whatever reason there are people who have never had a voice in their lives before, this is probably the first time they've ever typed out sentences and thoughts other people will read, and the result is this mean and evil hoaxing, denigrating, insulting and totally low-end...crap. I don't know what else to call it.
Faking a memo about a consolidation of newspapers in Binghamton WHILE THERE'S A MASS SLAYING THERE is just...crap.
Posting that you don't care about the people who got laid off, or claiming you got laid off and people don't care about you (as happened in the Jersey blog just now), is just ... crap.
Laughing at people, mocking colleagues, predicting new layoffs just because it's fun... spare us.
This blog should be way more intelligent than it is. It's a shame that the lowest end of Gannett employees are the ones in charge of what we read here. And it's because no one ever listened to them before and they don't know how to say thoughts without devolving to schoolyard tactics from third grade.
We're all in this together. If these were outside forces, as some contend -- bosses trying to destabilize the blog -- that would be one thing. Maybe that happens sometimes, but I don't believe that is behind the, sorry, crap that is here.
Seriously. This should be a smart place for smart people. Anger is one thing, but to be mean and stupid is beneath all of us.
Please. Think before you post. About what you are saying and who it might hurt.
Trolls and jerks are one thing. But the daily junk foisted on this blog by people who should know better is the real problem.
Ugh...
Banner ad has to be something short and to the point: How to get $875,000 cash (first view) Be a CEO of Gannett (second banner) Find out more, click here (Gannett.blog link with special page dedicated to research) You have to be careful how you word it so you are not sued or that the paper refuses to run it. Or maybe for print page: (have to do some research on this one) Gannett lost x amount of dollars in 2008, it's stock holders lost x amount, x amount of Gannett employees lost their jobs – Gannett CEO Craig DuBow earned x amount in cash and stock options –Questions?
ReplyDeleteShould be single lines of bold type for each line. Then a line that reads “We need to know the reasons why.“ Then the list of names and at bottom: To find out more or to donate to this cause visit www.gannettblog.com
Everyone, please read 5:05 pm's comment, then read it again until you heed the author's spot-on request!
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering, with this advertisement idea, if it would really be necessary for the contributors to sign their names. Certainly, this would have more impact, but it could lead to even more people losing their jobs.
ReplyDeleteIf Jim is willing to coordinate the effort, he could purchase the ad (with money donated by Gannett Blog readers) and protect most people's identities. We might get more people to donate that way and give the project an even broader reach.
I'm not sure this would be the best way to handle it, and I'm not saying I wouldn't sign my name. But this is a difficult time to put one's livelihood on the line, and if you're fired you might not even collect unemployment.
Any thoughts about this? Does anyone have a strong legal background? Is publicly criticizing a company that you work for grounds for dismissal or would GCI have to trump up charges to let people go without severance?
It might be good to discuss a few of these things before we move forward. But I LOVE the idea.
4:01
ReplyDelete4:05
4:18
4:25
and
JIM.........Some of you are cruel.
Some of you are stupid.
Some of you make a
point.
BUT STOP TRYING TO BE
DR. PHIL!!!
6:35 pm:
ReplyDeleteOption 1: ad is signed Jane Doe, John Smith, Jim Hopkins, Sparky _____, and x,xxx concerned stockholders, current and former employees plus concerned Americans, who endorse the message above and whose names are listed at gannettblog.blogspot.com/SPECIAL URL HERE.
Option 2: list no names in print, and direct readers to blog only.
I would be uncomfortable with my name in print because it would almost certainly mean being fired. But what about a list of those fired in December who want to be named?
ReplyDeleteGannett lost $X dollars
Slashed its dividend by X percent
Laid off X percent of its workforce
Told all remaining to take two weeks unpaid...
And paid CEO Craig DuBow an $875,000 for a job well done.
For that amount, how many of us could have been spared?
List of names
Good reading from today's Des Moines Register--
ReplyDeleteNewspapers Matter, For Democracy's Sake
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletePrint ads sound nice, but you'll get more bang for the buck by running web ads on WSJ.com, USAToday.com, MediaInfo.com, Poynter.org, the newspaper website that serves Dubow's home address, etc. Though, adding a print ad or two in the paper that he gets in his neighborhood would be even better as it reaches him and his neighbors.
ReplyDeleteI'd also pick the Boston Globe website as I'm sure lots of folks in that town would be very receptive to learn that media execs like Dubow still profit well from their own failure.
Plus, web ads should be sent out to other affiliated groups (SPJ's, etc.) and people should be able to download them either from this site and/or even one created specifically for this so they can add them to their sites, blogs, etc as well.
Giving some attention to board members in whatever is done, the ones who continue to allow this to go on, would help too - especially some focus on the compensation committee members.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator from another blog. This blog has been hijacked and hacked.
ReplyDeleteLet's run an ad and spend money on a stupid idea that won't mean jack. Of course, that's provided it even gets off the ground. The blog can generate revenue but it looks like it will generate revenue for USA TODAY! I think that is grand and am all for it.
My check is in the mail, sure I'll call you, yes I'll love you in the morning, I won't...oops.
I love the idea of an ad or an ad campaign. I am a December layoff but still don't think that my name (or others') should be listed. I think that, Jim, if you're comfortable, it should come from the blog and the blog supporters/readers. As for the poster who said this is a bad idea beacuse it's revenue for USAT, that's just asinine. This is a complaint/commentary on Dubow's ethics, not about USAT or Gannett. I'm in!!
ReplyDeleteI wonder how many full-page ads it would take to spare more lay-offs.
ReplyDeleteSorry, just thinking out-loud.
My opinion would be to use both options in the ad. Some of us would have nothing whatever to fear from Gannett. Others, obviously would. Certainly, anyone reading the ad would understand the delicate nature of the situation. How about listings such as:
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, Asbury Park Press
Anonymous, Gannett Corporate
5:05 PM wrote: "In the early days of the Internet, everyplace was full of really vile stuff but it finally calmed down a bit and today even the most wild and wooly cyberplaces -- wrestling sites, biker sites, gore sites -- have some sense of community and standards."
ReplyDeleteWhile I like your point about needing more grown-up postings around here, THIS paragraph made me laugh.
You really need to get out on the Internet more if you think things have "calmed down a bit."
9:31 Amen to that - the Internet is worse than ever - especially with the public comments on newspaper web sites - and the worst are the comments on crime stories.
ReplyDeleteI'll spring a couple of bucks for an ad - albeit anonymously.
ReplyDeleteThis is not about Dubow. This is not even about Gannett. And this is certainly not about gannettblog, nor, with all due respect, is this about Jim Hopkins and his investigative reporting skills.
ReplyDeleteThis is about America -- an America in which people are getting laid off while CEOs are taking big bonuses, and the very people who should be standing up and saying "Hold it right there!' -- journalists, the defenders of the First Amendment -- are too cowed to speak up when it's happening to them.
But the way this is shaping up, I am inclined to hang onto money, and I'm the original poster (aka 12:45/1:01).
The idea for an old-fashioned full-page NEWSPAPER ad in the nation's largest circulation newspaper (USA TODAY) about the Gannett CEO taking a huge bonus while workers are being laid off has very quickly morphed into a gimmicky online ad in the WSJ that demands to know about some questionable $40,000 donation that Jim uncovered, with links to gannettblog. I believe you've missed my point.
The idea of stopping greedy CEOs who are taking money while the rest of us suffer is resonating, in the truest sense of the word, with the American public. The Gannett stuff? Not so much.
We could write a beautifully worded document on honest-to-God newsprint. Those who want to sign, can. Those who don't can remain anonymous. And those of us who are employed can buddy up with someone who no longer is and help pay for them to have a voice.
If USA TODAY accepts the ad, we make news and we make our point and USA TODAY lives to print another day. If they don't accept the ad, we still make news and we still make our point.
Think about it: We would make news instead of covering the news, and we would speak truth to power.
It doesn't get much better than that.
This is not about Dubow. This is not even about Gannett. And this is certainly not about gannettblog, nor, with all due respect, is this about Jim Hopkins and his investigative reporting skills.
ReplyDeleteThis is about America -- an America in which people are getting laid off while CEOs are taking big bonuses, and the very people who should be standing up and saying "Hold it right there!' -- journalists, the defenders of the First Amendment -- are too cowed to speak up when it's happening to them.
But the way this is shaping up, I am inclined to hang onto money, and I'm the original poster (aka 12:45/1:01).
The idea for an old-fashioned full-page NEWSPAPER ad in the nation's largest circulation newspaper (USA TODAY) about the Gannett CEO taking a huge bonus while workers are being laid off has very quickly morphed into a gimmicky online ad in the WSJ that demands to know about some questionable $40,000 donation that Jim uncovered, with links to gannettblog. I believe you've missed my point.
The idea of stopping greedy CEOs who are taking money while the rest of us suffer is resonating, in the truest sense of the word, with the American public. The Gannett stuff? Not so much.
We could write a beautifully worded document on honest-to-God newsprint. Those who want to sign, can. Those who don't can remain anonymous. And those of us who are employed can buddy up with someone who no longer is and help pay for them to have a voice.
If USA TODAY accepts the ad, we make news and we make our point and USA TODAY lives to print another day. If they don't accept the ad, we still make news and we still make our point.
And we would speak truth to power.
The idea to launch a mini campaign in Dubow's neighborhood papers -- as well as a national campaign -- is inspired.
ReplyDeleteThe smaller outlets would probably be more affordable and could have impact. As for the guy who says the campaign would mean nothing -- maybe, maybe not.
But you never know until you try. If a few outside news organizations picked up the story it could have some legs, and the middle class is increasingly fed up with greedy CEOs. Who knows what sort of pressure Dumbo might feel?
At the very least, he'd probably get teased at the country club.
Where be my Moonies??
ReplyDeleteHi Jim,
ReplyDeleteKinda late in reporting this, but Poughkeepsie Journal copy desk jobs will be moved to the Journal News in Westchester. Pretty sure the copy editors will have to re-apply for a position in Westchester. Total number of positions to be eliminated was not given by the editor.
I haven't seen this news sent to you so I'm sending now. I believe it was announced on Thursday.
It was also announced during this meeting that the magazine published by the Poughkeepsie Journal, hvcmagazine.com (a Best of Gannett-winning magazine) will be suspended.
Obviously the staff is discontent and lacks morale. According the publisher the paper is still profitable. I guesss it's not profitable enough to please the scheisters from McLean.
It is agreed by many, and many staffers at the Poughkeepsie Journal, that although smaller, we're a much better paper than the Journal News ever has been or ever will be. No offense staffers at the Journal News. It has a lot to do with the former USAT flunkies running the operation in Westchester.
As of early January, Westchester is printing the Pughkeepsie Journal(45 jobs lost there) and not they'll be copy editing and paginating. WHAT'S NEXT??????
Thanks for the blog, Jim!
A quick poll here, please state whether you are taking your 2nd furlough in April, May or June. Also please state your location. Thanks!
ReplyDelete9:23 p.m. now you're talking!
ReplyDelete11:13 -- I'm taking mine in April. West coast paper.
ReplyDelete10:31 -- I'm OK with the original idea ... or an expanded concept.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that corporate corruption is a huge problem not only within but outside of Gannett. But, as GCI employees, we might as well start somewhere. Perhaps the campaign will give other abused workers a similar idea, and they'll call their CEOs out as well.
I understand the desire to hold onto every penny these days, but I think grassroots efforts like this can make a difference.
Let's rally and make this happen.
i would be willing to kick in 30$ for the ad denouncing MR.dubow's bonus and i dont even work for a Gannett paper but a Mcclatchy paper-my friend got laid off from the Tallahassee newspaper last year--I'll even sign my name--
ReplyDeleteHey 10:31 pm
ReplyDeleteI would chip in for a generic CEO ad. That's something worth getting everyone in a huff about. Something directed at Dubow would just be frivolous, especially if it was about a $40 grand donation. No one will give a crap.
I'm taking one of my two furloughs in April and the other in June. Yes, while you may only have one, I have two.
How about signing as:
ReplyDeleteConcerned present and former
USA/GANNETT employees....
Like this:
ReplyDeleteI would be uncomfortable with my name in print because it would almost certainly mean being fired. But what about a list of those fired in December who want to be named?
Gannett lost $X dollars
Slashed its dividend by X percent
Laid off X percent of its workforce
Told all remaining to take two weeks unpaid...
And paid CEO Craig DuBow an $875,000 for a job well done.
For that amount, how many of us could have been spared?
List of names
I'm taking my furlough in April. I'm in Northern VA/DC.
ReplyDeleteJim:
ReplyDelete• Set up a separate location for suggestions for the ad verbiage.
•Get exact prices for full-page ads in USAT, NYT and WSJ. Primary goal: one full-page in USAT. If more money than that comes in, NYT. If even more money comes in, add WSJ. Any ad would run April 28, the day of the shareholder's meeting. Or the day before, if this is a better opportunity.
• Set up a PayPal account JUST for contributions for the ad. Guarantee the return of people's money if no ad(s) space is ever purchased. People are not going to be happy contributing $30 for an ad if they find out it ended up going to gannettblog funding (sorry.)
•On what to say in the ad, I like the focus on the compensation committee, prefaced with the number of layoffs and by date, and the furloughs. Simple, and to the point. "HAVE YOU NO SHAME?" at the end works for me, in big type. At the bottom, in smaller type, could be the special URL for gannettblog (http://gannettblog.blogspot.com/NOSHAME) with the research facts. That's what most action groups do.
The media buzz for this will be huge, if we pull it off. Keep up the good work, Jim!
word verification: supoopo, LOL!
re: 8:50AM--
ReplyDeleteHow about signing as:
Concerned present and former
USA/GANNETT employees....
That's how it should be signed, except I'd add one thing:
Concerned present and former USA/GANNETT employees and shareholders.
http://www.usatoday.com/media_kit/images/usatoday/2008_usa_today_rate_card.pdf
ReplyDeleteMost recent rate card from USAT website.
Easy google search.
http://tiny.cc/3ZZyI
ReplyDeleteMaybe this one will work better.
2009 Rate card USAT