Recently, Director X declined my request to correspond directly, without the assistant's filter, saying: "This will confirm I received your note. It is not my practice to discuss Gannett board matters outside the boardroom."
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.
This is the first time I've disclosed the existence of this correspondence.
ReplyDeleteThis news should cause quite a row before Tuesday's meeting.
ReplyDeleteI just hope that more of them take note of all us "little people" participating in the blog. Hopefully, it will push them to select a good communicator as DuBow's replacement. I have one existing Gannett exec in mind who would be a "class act" as CEO.
ReplyDeleteUndoubtedly, Jim's name will come up during the Board meeting. Not only does Dubow need to go, they need to cut Martore loose too. And for once and for all, get rid of those executive bonuses and perks.
ReplyDeleteRecently, Director X declined my request to correspond directly, without the assistant's filter, saying: "This will confirm I received your note. It is not my practice to discuss Gannett board matters outside the boardroom."
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing the board member's "filter" was off on furlough.
I hope the board realizes that this blog represents the malcontents of the newsrooms -- who exist at every newspaper and impede any real work that needs to get done.
ReplyDeleteI hope the board also realizes that the blog should also be filtered for all the bitterness being posted by people who've been laid off.
People get laid off. It happens all the time, every year -- in all industries. But our industry tends to have an overabundance of whiners who know how to write.
Hey 4:45 -- NEWSFLASH....there are actually people in the business that don't work in a newsroom. I know it's hard to believe, but it's true, I swear it. I would bet you a good sum that laid off workers represent at best 30-40% of the commenters here.
ReplyDeleteWho knows where we'd be had this blog existed earlier than it did and performed the watchdog function it now provides. Anonymous comments are a testament to the pseudo-stalinist state of affairs within this company's hierarchy, not cowardice.
--- Not in the Newsroom, Pensacola
I love to see 4:45 and others come to the Gannett Blog to whine about people they perceive to be whiners.
ReplyDeleteOh, the irony.
Hey 5:11 p.m.--I dunno. "Pseudo-Stalinist?" You sure look like a pointy-headed intellectual writer-type to me.
ReplyDeleteLemme ask you this--and consider very very carefully before you answer. Have you ever used, or found yourself wanting to use, the word "robust" in or out of the workplace? C'mon, 'fess up.
When they discuss severance and director's fees, I want to hear the word CLAWBACK.
ReplyDeleteJim: should we read into the configuration of the montage, or have I been watching too much Lost?
ReplyDeleteScott
7:37 pm: Way, way, way too many episodes of Lost!
ReplyDeleteHey 4:45p...Good try Tara Connell, but you are the only one who would use the word "malcontents".
ReplyDeleteAnother fact I have not disclosed until now:
ReplyDeleteMy appearance and actions at last year's annual shareholders meeting were part of a strategy I developed to bolster this blog's credibility -- with the aim of opening private communications with directors.
But I've had very limited success, and that has been a major disappointment. I haven't given up, however.
Why in god's name would a direct talk with you, Jim? Give me a break.
ReplyDelete8:19 am: Why would a board member talk to me? Perhaps because they realized that talking solely to management hasn't worked out so well.
ReplyDeleteJim@ 8:50 AM
ReplyDeleteWhat would you advise them to do.
I would need to see the reports and presentations they've been given to make their decision. That said, I would tell them what I hope is obvious: Suspend the dividend entirely and apply the roughly $300 million in savings toward paying down debt.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely! Right On! I think you will see that happen today.
ReplyDelete