(Updated.) For the first time, this blog has been attacked by a comment spammer, or group of spammers, unhappy about my post on profit margins at Gannett newspapers. The spamming subsided early today, after starting soon after I published the original post yesterday afternoon. But as a precaution, I'll continue reviewing all comments before they're published. This slows comment publishing a tad, and creates a bit more work for yours truly, but I'm not going to let the site get overwhelmed. And, as always, I appreciate your support.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Spam attack requires me to OK your comments
(Updated.) For the first time, this blog has been attacked by a comment spammer, or group of spammers, unhappy about my post on profit margins at Gannett newspapers. The spamming subsided early today, after starting soon after I published the original post yesterday afternoon. But as a precaution, I'll continue reviewing all comments before they're published. This slows comment publishing a tad, and creates a bit more work for yours truly, but I'm not going to let the site get overwhelmed. And, as always, I appreciate your support.
30 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)
One of the best products to come out of Minnesota, Spam is great when ground up with Velveeta and then slathered over a toasted English muffin and slid under a broiler until the cheese scorches.
ReplyDeleteYUM!
Thanks for pulling those comments, Jim. It's your house, you make the rules. I can dig some off-topic comments and criticism, but man, at least they should attempt to be clever. Or at the very least, interesting....
I would not be surprise, if the person who was behind the "Gannetblogsucks" blog is responsible for your spam(good barbecued)
ReplyDeleteSorry to hear you're under attack.
ReplyDeleteI'll bet it isn't the first time you've taken heat over something you've published.
The information in the report made me feel good. I was always assured that Gannett papers were profitable but that never seemed to jibe with the way they were run. We always suffered with cutbacks in supplies, delayed equipment repairs, burned out copiers, massive dark time, contracted coverage, cuts in mileage and training.
I was still working for Gannett at the time this report was issued. I know what it was like in the newsroom at that time. I was dishearatened by the conditions and the way people were pushed around to fill vacancies, even if the person wasn't the best person for the job.
Now, instead of thinking Gannett higher ups are responding to tough economic times I have concluded that they really were money grasping cheapskates.
Thanks, Jim. Sorry that a few bad apples are making it more difficult for you.
ReplyDeleteWe're behind you, Jim.
ReplyDeleteJim, hang in there buddy, we all appreciate what you are doing. It is sad that Gannett is trying to make taking you down a priority. They have bigger problems they should pay attention to.
ReplyDeleteHi Jim. I missed the spamming but am curious - what sort of issue was being taken by the posting of these profit margins? Personally, it looks relevant and timely.
ReplyDeleteAlso, thank you for being gannettblog!
Question Jim: How do you know the spam attack is due to someone "unhappy about my post on profit margins at Gannett newspapers"?
ReplyDelete10:34: Probably because they targeted those posts with a ton of single-character "comments."
ReplyDeleteJim - I'm sure if you give Tara or Craig a call, they'll stop the spamming. ;-)
The attack involved leaving scores and scores of nonsense comments, all on the post about newspaper profit margins. As 10:45 am, said many were comments consisting of a single alphabet character. Others consisted of fragments of other readers' comments. None of them actually addressed the substance of the post.
ReplyDeleteThe net effect was to overwhelm the post's comment area so the string would become so long, legitimate readers would have a hard time wading through all of them.
But it had the perverse effect of driving up my page views significantly -- which I'm not sure the spammers intended.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry to hear that. You've done a remarkable job keeping the blog going and most of us appreciate it.
Any chance the spam can be traced by IP addresses to Fairfax, VA? Or am I seeing a conspiracy when none exists?
thanks.
11:25 pm: I cannot trace IP addresses -- nor do I want to.
ReplyDeleteI hope it also drove up subscriptions! It made this bleeding heart take notice. I appreciate the information this blog posts and I should have made a donation sooner. Thanks again Jim!
ReplyDeleteJim-
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking control away from these thug spammers. You Rock Dude!
My donation is in the mail today...
keep up the outstanding work.
Jim, I am not one of the spammers who attacked your blog. But I am not happy at all with your decision to publish confidential company financial information simply because a disgruntled employee handed them over to you.
ReplyDeleteThe employee who gave it to you should be fired immediately. You should be ashamed of yourself.
RE: Anon 2:56 -- why should he have not published it? Profit margins in excess of 20% at most papers puts layoffs into perspective. I think it's vital information, that as employees under the knife we need to know.
ReplyDeleteWhy? It's confidential corporate information that is more than a year old and will only serve to make things worse.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of what the profit margins were MORE THAN A YEAR AGO, the fact is the stock price has sunk like a stone. Wall Street obviously was not impressed with the company's future. Changes had to be made -- including layoffs and financial cuts.
Perhaps no additional damage will come from this disclosure. For his sake, I hope no one else loses a job because of his irresponsible decision.
why do you need to know the profit margins. how will it help you?
ReplyDeleteTwo questions for the commenters above:
ReplyDelete(1) How will the release of year-old data hurt Gannett, except in in the public relations arena?
(2) Should all leakers who provide confidential corporate or government information be fired? Does your newspaper site use leaked information?
"For his sake, I hope no one else loses a job because of his irresponsible decision."
ReplyDeleteFer chrissake, they're cutting thousands of jobs, on top of the uundreds that were cut just a couple months ago!!
What could Jim possibly do that would be more harmful than that?
let other companies deal with their own turncoats. gannett policies are very clear on releasing company confidential information. this was considered confidential information. releasing confidential information without authorization is subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination.
ReplyDeleteif you know about a breach of ethics in the company, you should report the issue using the confidential ethics reporting line. that information is available on the main company web site. so, if you have an issue with how the company is treating you, do the responsible thing and report it rather than bitching here without doing anything. otherwise your just blowing wind and don't really have an issue.
the moderator of this blog should post this information on the front page of the blog if there is really a belief that there are ethical issues happening. let the company do the right thing which has in the past and will do again.
With what authority do any of you claim the information in that document was a Gannett secret, just because the person who gave it to Jim chose to ask Jim to keep him/her confidential?
ReplyDeleteI'm sure I've seen these percentages reported before, when the news was fresh. I strongly do not think our profit margins were any secret or could not be found if someone chose to look for them. The only thing I know for a fact was confidential was how Jim received them, which means nothing. I post anonymously to be confidential, even though I neither know nor share anything at all that's secret.
Use some logic, people, especially those of you who are journalists. At least, ID yourself or at least your authority to know something is secret if you're going to go off accusing Jim and the source of being unethical. That might be considered libelous, itself, you know.
This company got what it deserved. And Jim did his journalistic duty in enlightening us with the published information. We can now take that info and perhaps defend our jobs a little better the next time someone like Ken Paulson holds a meeting like he did last Monday, or at least be better informed about what sort of company we actually work for. This should be a real eye-opener for all USA TODAY employees, as well as the rest of Gannett. Someone leaking this info to Jim doesn't compare with the betrayal Gannett and USA TODAY have inflicted upon its own employees. I am grateful Jim published it. I hope other media organizations pick up on it and really start exposing what is actually going on in Gannett with all the layoffs.
ReplyDeleteThe company was laying people off before Jim posted that information and they already said they will continue to do so in 2009.
ReplyDeleteTo blame that on Jim is myopic at best.
Sorry to hear you have to OK the comments Jim but I don't blame you one bit. You have to do what you have to do, and we support you.
The Gannett Cost & Statistical Report is anything but confidential information. It goes out to every Publisher, with many of them sharing the information with every one of their Operating Committee Members. The info also goes out to Wall Street.
ReplyDeleteKeep up the good work, Jim!!
@8:08 - You have no idea what you are talking about. Whether or not the document is confidential has nothing to do with whom it is distributed to inside the company. It is amazing at the level of ignorance that is displayed on this blog. This is a Gannett confidential document whether you wish it to be or not.
ReplyDeleteAlso, this report is certainly NOT shared with Wall Street. Wall Street gets a consolidated report for the company. Gannett does not break out individual papers performance for the street. I suggest that you listen to the quarterly conference call with the analysts that follow Gannett to hear for yourself what is shared with Wall Street.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that you have any responsibility to contradict incorrect information posted on this blog? Or is it reader beware for all of the information shared here? Seriously, what it is your position on whether or not bloggers have a responsibility for the comments posted on blogs that follow a specific company and take on the mantel of a watch dog.
8:53 pm: I try to correct glaring errors. But I often don't know -- or don't know for sure -- that a comment is incorrect. Gannett is too big a company to know everything that well.
ReplyDeleteDo you have a particular comment, or comments, in mind?
let's start with the whole being notified by phone nonsense - this might be true if the person worked very remotely but it is certainly not a standard way to do a layoff. moreover, did you hear of anyone having this happen in the last round? of course not. however, you sure seem to be using it for your own purposes.
ReplyDeleteresponsibility starts from the top down. you barely ever interject a cautioning statement when obvious nonsense is being posted. show some leadership. ask that only accurate information be shared. if you think that gannett is messing with peoples lives than look yourself in the mirror. there is more bad information coming out of this blog than has EVER been put out by gannett. tell me that's not true...
i believe that this is something that you seriously need to consider as you move forward.
i'm apparently not the only one suggesting the phone thing is not true. you should pull your post until you actually have verification that this is actually happening.
ReplyDelete