On my coverage about yesterday's annual shareholders meeting, a reader comments: "At root, this discussion is about whether bloggers are journalists. How many reputable journalists do you know who would feel comfortable about breaking into a meeting with a speech/question and then writing about the resulting circus? Imagine some reporter doing that at a city council meeting. Print journalists usually write about what they see, not what they do and your training is in print. People who want you to confront the board really are rooting for an entertaining conflict not an educated answer."Separately, another reader comments: "You wait for back alley type of 'tips' from disgruntled losers from Cherry Hill, Indianapolis and the rest. You are a disappointment to all the journalists at Gannett and USA Today. Your audience on this blog are a bunch of gossipy lazy asses."
Join the debate, in the original post.
Uh, I'm not sure what the person means about "breaking in" but I believe that most journalists do usually ask questions and then report on the resulting response.
ReplyDeleteOne other point is that you went as a shareholder and had the right to ask any appropriate question you wanted.
It seems that there are about one or two voices from the corporate office, and a long shareholder or two, who are each making multiple disparaging comments about Gannett Blog. These are the ones who have lots at stake, and everything to lose when truths about this company are exposed. Yes, it would have been nice to see Jim ask a question. But really... was it that important? What would have been gained? Just to get another bumbling nonsense answer from Dubow or some other clueless clown on the board. That's all we would have gotten. In no way does a lack of a question being asked diminish all the groundbreaking work Jim has accomplished as an unpaid blogger. Keep up the good work, Jim. Don't let the two or three malcontents get you down.
ReplyDeleteI made the original post, and let me explain about the questioning of participants.
ReplyDeleteMost print reporters would question a city council member before or after -- but not during -- a meeting.
Jim's speech/questions would have happened during the meeting. I don't really know his motives for not speaking up, but I suspect the event would have turned into a circus if he did.
BTW Jim, you could do that a few times, and get the result picked up on sites as reputable as Poynter and as compelling as Drudge. Soon you'd have a paying gig on CNBC as a media commentator.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteHere is a "tip" for you. Your blog sucks! You failed us and now you have opened yourself up to some competition. Can we fire you from this role? Our severance package will be some free Starbucks coffee.
To Anon@1:17 p.m. It's easy! Just stop visiting and leaving comments. I'm not afraid of competititon; indeed, I encourage it.
ReplyDeleteFrom the moment I put my name on this blog, Jan. 11, I encouraged/begged/pleaded for readers to start more blogs about the company and its subsidiary businesses. Sadly, I'm still waiting. Remember: there are 46,100 Gannett employees and thousands more ex-Gannettoids. GCI is too big a company for one blogger -- i.e., me -- to cover.
For the idiot that said "This blog sucks" , stop visiting the site and go back to your large pitcher of Kool-Aid. If it wasn't for this blog most employees at The Californain, Westchester and Rochester wouldn't know how horrible the current circulation numbers are.
ReplyDelete@anon 12:15 - The one thing that would not have happened is that the event would have become a circus. First, it's a business meeting - by all accounts it lasted less than 45 minutes. They would have heard the question out and then would have provided a polite response and that would have been it. There are crazier people than Jim who go to board meetings and ask questions much crazier than Jim's would have been. Second, as was pointed out earlier, Jim had every right to ask a question as a shareholder in the company.
ReplyDelete