Indeed, as I continued boring in with questions, Dubow, 54, appeared to grow a bit testy, and then finally refused to answer any more. Overall, he was contemptuous of my desire to get answers to legitimate questions.
Meanwhile, Presiding Director Karen Hastie Williams, 64 (left), kept her back to me the entire time. Indeed, I pointed out to the audience of about 300 that all the board members were seated with their backs to shareholders during much of the meeting. (Upon my question, Dubow said Williams would continue as a member of the company's audit committee. As a member of four other corporate boards, she sits on three other audit committees as well.)
Directors plus retired CEOs Al Neuharth and Doug McCorkindale (next to Al) were in a VIP section up front that seated about 60. I asked Dubow how many laid-off employees were seated in the section. I believe he said he did not know.
Finally, a particularly large guard from Admiral Security Services kept hovering around me. I asked if he was carrying a gun, and he refused to say. I asked again, and was directed to another Gannett employee. She told me the guard was unarmed.
Finally, a particularly large guard from Admiral Security Services kept hovering around me. I asked if he was carrying a gun, and he refused to say. I asked again, and was directed to another Gannett employee. She told me the guard was unarmed.
Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write gannettblog[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the green rail, upper right.
76 comments:
one time at band camp...
OMG no way Jim you must feel like such a bad ass.. hahaha what a joke
What's my name? Say my name, bitch!
In that moment, we had a fundamental relationship that he was not respecting. As a stockholder, he is my employee. He needed to act like one.
The board of directors needs to bring this man to heel. Until they do, well . . .
i think when you personalize your relationship with gannett and the executives that you cover you take a wrong turn. sure, you are a stock holder (one share?) but why should you care whether or not he used your name. i would think that you would care more about getting an answer. it all comes off a little bit strange to me.
Instead of all this personal stuff, why not tell us more of the questions you asked?
I really hope you didn't fly across the country for a question about a measly $40K.
Who cares about this crap, Jim?
Jim wrote: "As a stockholder, he is my employee. He needed to act like one."
OK, you have one share. Whoop de doo.
I can get 2 for the money I pay for a combo meal at Wendy's.
Hey, it was on your own dime, so you could do whatever you wanted. Who the hell am I to question your judgement or motives.
If I walked in wearing my hat, I'd want to make damn sure my questions were pertinent, credible and broad in scope. Corporate obviously likes to discredit this blog. I wouldn't do anything to lend any credence to their argument.
"Who the hell am I to question your judgement or motives."
With one share, the blogger doesn't have much at stake in the company. A relevant corollary question would be why does the blogger care about what Gannett is doing?
Taking on "the man" is always a good thing for journalists to do in a free society. And too few writers/reporters who are still working have the courage to do it anymore. Good job, Jim. Now if we can just get some folks on the inside to show some backbone in big and small ways. But most are afraid to even say anything to their editors anymore that even hints at there being a problem, particularly at USA TODAY. Questioning authority, even in a constructive way, has become a major no-no, especially in departments like Design where absurdity rules. These editors say their doors are open, and like to play the touchy-feely game, but go through one of those doors one too many times and you could find yourself on the list for the next round of dismissals. Still, questioning authority at a newspaper should be done and it should be welcomed. Not doing it, in essence, is what is one of the things causing a decline at USAT. Too much insecurity at the top in most sections and departments. Too many hushed whispers at the water coolers. Too many horrid decisions that never get exposed for being wrong. That's why I support this blog. It shines some light where all the weasels want darkness and silence.
More and more, Jim is proving this BLOG! is more about himself and less about Gannett.
And to think, at one time, I championed Jim as a voice for the silent majority. These last few weeks have proven Jim only cares about one voice - his own.
That's fine. If he wants to be a famous blogger, that's his right. But I wish he wouldn't act like he's representing those laid off and those wronged over the years.
I think I'm done reading his blog and contributing money to his cause. Because I don't think his cause matches my cause anymore.
Sorry Jim, but you've just lost a loyal reader and contributor. And you can't blame this one on Dubow or Gannett.
@2:33 - Jim barely knows anything about Gannett. What in Digital does he cover? Does he know who calls the shots on the technology that is being implemented? I see no evidence of that. Does he know what technology is in place to make the consolidations work? No evidence of that. Does he know who is in charge of the financial consolidations? Doesn't seem to. Has there been in-depth reporting on how the Information Center works that describes the benefits and pitfalls? Nope.
There is no light being shined on Gannett. Most of the things that are "news" on this blog are personality type junk that doesn't get close to covering how or why Gannett is moving in the direction that it is. There is a big story about American journalism happening right beneath his nose but he worries about a $40k grants to a college that educates people.
This whole thing about not using his name is emblematic of the tone of the blog. Go ahead and defend but, really, other than providing a water cooler for commiserating, rumor, innuendo and close to libelous rants, what light do you see?
Anonymous said...
More and more, Jim is proving this BLOG! is more about himself and less about Gannett.
Calling out Dubow to say his name made him look foolish.
Sorry Jim, I think corporate won the day. I do like the new Facebook design, but I think you need more pictures of yourself.
stickin' it to da man!
good job. I mail out your next $4 payment in May.
this is good - are there any more meetings you can go to?
please do. love this!
I have to say, I've been a fan of this blog for a long time. But I watched Jim's buildup before the meeting on this blog and was a bit disturbed. Even more troublesome was seeing his performance and demeanor at today's shareholder meeting. His questions were lame, there was a tone of arrogance and an "I'm important, I'm going to get you and you can no longer avoid me" that was very childish and a waste of time. Particularly when Jim insisted on Dubow acknowledging Jim's name before the shareholders. I don't know what to think, now. I don't agree with all the obvious intentional anti-Jim bashing. But Jim, you've got to figure out what you're trying to accomplish here. If you think you took on "the man" and won, you're mistaken. You came off like a buffoon.
Weak.
Love it, Jim. Good work. Keep turning the screws and exposing the truth.
Jim--I will keep reading, will still send $ when I can.
BUT--without seeing the meeting, it sounds like you did miss the point. You need to be more respectful to them than they are to you. Don't give them anything to discredit you.
Also--as someone from the non-editorial side---your manner reminds me EXACTLY of some arrogant newsmen I know. :) Maybe it's just in your blood and that's why the world needs good reporters.
As you have said before you would NOT make a good PR man.
But I still think Gannettblog serves a very valuable need. Maybe you are just exploring areas that are wll suited to your talents.
Try doing more of the GBTV, talk into the camera.
So is there really no recording of the meeting?
Good to see a few of Jim's sheep have seen the light.
But the dumbest of them are still trying to get in close to lick his nads.
This effort today should have finished off the remnants of support for Jim. Anyone who continues to back him is sending out a clear message: "I am too dumb to get the facts. I am too weak to follow the right path."
The real question is: Were YOU carrying a gun?
Jim always carries his gun. It's more like a peashooter, but it's still potentially lethal in the right doses.
And if Jim sold that vial of "crack," someone is smoking Spanky's ammo and getting really pissed off. I wouldn't go back to D.C. right away, Jimbo.
Travis Bickle's blog.
I'm guessing that there are virtually no journalists posting comments here, because if there were, there would be a helluva lot more appreciation for what Jim is doing.
Journalists are, by nature, cynical and tend to ask a lot of impertinent, uncomfortable and sometimes downright rude questions. And nowhere is this more evident and needed than at a company's annual meeting given how many boards of directors tend to not want to really be confronted by any hard questions about their suspect decision making.
The $40,000 charity issue is another classic Gannett example of how the folks at the top of the management food chain are allowed to operate by different standards than the poor schlubs down in the trenches. Why should the CEO be allowed to give to his own personal charity? If it were such a common and accepted corporate practice, as some here say it is, then why does no one in Gannett management simply address it head on and say so?
I've already donated to this blog twice in the past year, but I'm going to give Jim another $100 because I believe in the work he is doing even if so many of the rest of you are clueless about it.
As a former Gannett editor at one of the metro newspaper operations, I can see that the company's overt hypocracy and double standard is still alive and well. I'm glad that Jim is one who refuses to simply accept it as the way things must continue to be ...
Jim,
You have issues. See a shrink, or get a new one.
"I can see that the company's overt hypocracy and double standard is still alive and well."
I can see that you're an idiot who shouldn't be posting here.
Another of Jim's sheep -- really dumb and really gullible. Really unnecessary in today's job market.
Thanks, 4:00 -- you eloquently stated why this blog is important in the Gannett scheme of things.
Being a journalist is about never being comfortable, never being afraid, even when those around you say you're barking up the wrong tree. For everyone who's so obsessed with HOW he presented himself, you need to get to the message and focus on that.
It starts at the top, and it starts with their example. Good job, Jim, for starting there, too.
4:16 is another member of the sheep.
In that moment, we had a fundamental relationship that he was not respecting. As a stockholder, he is my employee. He needed to act like one.
... Jim, you just lost me. You squandered the moral high ground. He's the CEO of a Fortune 500 company and you acted like a little kid in a playground fight. This isn't journalism. Journalism isn't personal, it's objective. This isn't doing anybody one bit of good. Signing off your blog for good, ciao
Jim, you should have committed seppuku at the podium.
You've lost the battle and the war. Time to limp home to Spanky.
4:17 doesn't have anything original to say, so he keeps repeating "sheep" while pretending his Gannett job will exist next year. Jesus, Craig, get a life.
Jim, I'm afraid you've lost your perspective. Take a couple days off travel where you will, and come back to the fold re-energized and mindful of what your original purpose was here. Your actions today betray your intentions.
have to agree with the majority opinion Jim, you made a complete ass of yourself. You would have been better off freezing like you did the last time....by the way, this is my first slam of you...so the record is now 31 GCI slams and Jim 1. Just trying to be fair...hey you're new tag line should be: "They call me MR Tibbs"!!
Yay! Kudos to Jim for representing (some of) us!
Ya all are just making too much of this. Tomorrow is another day. We'll need Jim to let keep on plugging away. He's ONE person, doing a fine job. Sure, it could have gone down differently today, but it's not the end of the world (or the blog!)
Jim,
Ignore the detractors. You did fine. I've been to many an annual meeting of a lot of companies, and the CEO is invariably barely awake during the Q&A, and directors could be nodding off for all we know because they ALWAYS have their backs to the audience. Annual meetings are cut-and-dried events to make it appear as if management is being attentive and responsive to the shareholders -- the owners, even people with 1 share. They typically limit your time at the mike and they typically dodge your question. In other words, they'd rather be on the golf course.
Wow, clearly an orchestrated "spam" effort to make it appear as if Jim's readers were turning against him. Were you management sycophants "on the clock" as you flooded GannettBlog with your silly comments? And do you really think you are fooling anyone?
Jim, you keep at it.
By the way, corporate governance is moribund in this nation, if not dead. That this board can month after month, meeting after meeting, sit back with their drooling smiles and nod approvingly at Gannett's failed management shows that no one is truly watching out for the shareholder's interest.
Jim Hopkins said...
In that moment, we had a fundamental relationship that he was not respecting. As a stockholder, he is my employee. He needed to act like one.
4/28/2009 2:01 PM
Jim Hopkins said...
The board of directors needs to bring this man to heel. Until they do, well . . .
4/28/2009 2:06 PM
Why should he respect you...because you own one single share of Gannett stock? Then look at what you say next. You get what you give and you certainly don't give any kind of respect. Why should he give any?
I thought something was going to come of today but it is just another day and you wasted a ton of money traveling.
I would not have worried about the rent-a-cops they are the biggest waste of money in the crystal palace
Jim, you should strongly consider electroshock therapy. It could do you a world of good. I can just imagine you screaming like a banshee during the treatment.
As a longtime copy editor and manager at a Gannett daily who is still employed, I am grateful for the efforts Jim Hopkins makes to hold this board and this company accountable. The bleeding under Dubow is despicable and under his guidance this company is headed in the wrong direction, if it will survive at all. Dubow, Conner, Dickey and all the rest of the "gang" must be ousted if any of us still working will see retirement.
7:29 is likely one of those management toads who spends his whole day "supervising" while others do the real work.
Those are the types of people who need to be ousted.
It sure is amazing how these "critics" of this blog are now appearing. As a metro reporter, I know when to spot BS from a mile away.
Fact: This blog is always ahead of the curve about layoffs, furloughs and shutdowns. It's record is one of accurate information. The only misinformation has come from the comments section.
The critics can't dispute the track record and I'd rather be informed ahead of time than handed the pink slip by surprise.
7:34. You couldn't be more wrong. I am 7:29 and yes, I supervise. But I also write two stories, posted six photo galleries, coded and posted 16 stories to our Web site all before noon today. Go back to your golf course with Dickey.
Hey 7:34 how much are they paying you to post on here?
We can dispute the track record of the blog and the credibility of those who post.
There is no reason to believe any of the crap. This idiot at 7:40 claims he did a pile of work, but how do we know that's credible? And even if it is, why should we care?
Bottom line -- the blog has been worthless for a long time. The jabs at Jim are its saving grace.
As a longtime copy editor and manager at a Gannett daily who is still employed, I am grateful for the efforts Jim Hopkins makes to hold this board and this company accountable. The bleeding under Dubow is despicable and under his guidance this company is headed in the wrong direction, if it will survive at all. Dubow, Conner, Dickey and all the rest of the "gang" must be ousted if any of us still working will see retirement.
4/28/2009 7:29 PM
Please, please, please - tell me how Jim holds anyone accountable. He can't even hold himself accountable.
First, he makes a big deal about the foundation saying he needs returns from 88-91 which was bogus. Nexct, he doesn't even tell us what happened at the foundation. Then he builds up everything for this meeting and when front an center asks lame questions and critiques where people sit.
You call that holding anyone accountable?
Oh, it's so easy to critize, but then you weren't in Jim's shoes were you. Did you take a plane to the East Coast to ask questions to Craig? No, I didn't think you did. Did you start a blog for Gannett employees? Nope, not you. Have you done anything personally to help get information out to present and past Gannett employees. Nope, guess that's strike three. So here you are, leaving childish messages about a person's sexual preference, how poorly this person has done something, yet there you sit. Typing words to make yourself feel better, to make yourself feel more important and you just hope maybe one person will take your bait and then you can post more comments about nothing. It's very easy to make fun of someone, say what a lousy job they did, that they are stupid. Those are something any five year old child could do. But to actually physically do something to try to make a difference — now that's a whole different ball of wax. Some people are followers, others are leaders. Thanks for leading the way for the rest of us Jim. Great job!
Hey Dubow, looks like an $800,000 bonus can buy you a lot of anti-Jim posts.
8:35 is just another sheep pointing useless bullshit.
The summary: No examples of how Jim has accomplished anything. Just a lot of pointless typing.
8:39 I am sure glad you are so righteous!
If nothing else, this blog offers an alternative to the nonsensical crap spewed by Dubow and the board.
One negative about the board though, sometimes people like you post your vile crud on here.
You asked for one accomplishemnt this blog has achieved. I own Gannett stock and never would ahve known about Dubow's "gift" to Western Carolina University otherwise. Or known about Big Al's living high on the hog lifestyle at our expense.
8:58 -- I'll add... or that our pension plan is not protected. I never read that in any Gannett document/website/handbook.
Anonymous said...
8:39 I am sure glad you are so righteous!
If nothing else, this blog offers an alternative to the nonsensical crap spewed by Dubow and the board.
You asked for one accomplishemnt this blog has achieved. I own Gannett stock and never would ahve known about Dubow's "gift" to Western Carolina University otherwise. Or known about Big Al's living high on the hog lifestyle at our expense.
4/28/2009 8:58 PM
Here, here - you hit the nail on the head!
Furthermore, I notice that these anti-Jim posters (we should call them AJPs for short) have tried time an again to change the subject matter to Jim instead of Gannett.
As another poster recognized correctly: Were you management sycophants "on the clock" as you flooded GannettBlog with your silly comments?
You are obviously correct, because these AJPs are truly showing how much time they spend of this blog when they should be thinking of ways to improve company profits. That's what they get paid for, but I see no idea or improvement. The bonus they received must have truly been worth it.
And we wonder why the company goes down..............
"8:58 -- I'll add... or that our pension plan is not protected. I never read that in any Gannett document/website/handbook."
Then you are a dumbfuck. You mean you had God knows how much money invested and you had no idea about its security?
I watched the meeting on the internal video feed. I'm concerned about many of the issues that you raise, particularly the lack of follow-through on strategic direction and the entitlement culture that senior management has fallen victim to.
I believe that the way to address this is professionally and with detached reporting: exactly the virtues that we want this company to represent. That isn't what I saw today.
I was never much of a reporter myself. But I still recall some simple things:
-- prepare; always have the next question ready
-- listen; be ready to follow-up
-- treat your interview subjects with respect
I hope that intelligent journalism can have a place in the web world. Maybe even on this blog.
Thanks, 9:30 pm, for watching from your desk while I did all the heavy lifting!
If you were at the Shareholder's meeting or watching, you saw how thoroughly Jim embarassed himself. He was pathetic. Stupid questions asked without point or direction; politically correct answers given. Fidgeting with the microphone and dancing around. You made a fool of yourself and lost all credability as a reporter. Hang up the Blog hat Jim.
9:29 PM -- Yeah, I must be a dumb fuck for not knowning that our pension plan is not federally protected.
However, I do know where every penny that I personally invest is and that it's protected. Well, unless the country folds.
I saw the video feed during the meeting. Jim, you didn't do yourself any favors. Yes, you raised all the issues you've raised here in the blog, and kudos to you for that. But you undermined your effort with your silly prancing around before your first question, your inability to ask a question without stumbling through it, your mix of questions that were serious and stupid, and, above all, your question to Dubow as to whether he knew your name. All I could think of was how childish you were being and how much of an opportunity you were wasting. I give you credit for making the trip and asking tough questions, but I would have preferred a little more "60 Minutes" and a little less "TMZ" out of your effort.
Jim you really think you ought to criticize 9:30? That assessment was about as straightforward as you can get. He neither pointed fingers nor let people off the hook.
What you fail to realize with all of your antics is that you're not succeeding in advancing any of the issues that you seem to be so concerned about. The only issue you are advancing is the Jim Hopkins show.
That's not why many of us, including myself, started tuning into this blog in the first place.
So in your private moments, when you take off the armor, please consider returning to the reporter mold. If you have concerns about the company, raise them respectfully, and advance your agenda with logic and objectivity rather than dramatics.
I left USA Today to move ahead into a new digital world of journalism. That means breaking lots and lots of eggs. You guys need to stop clinging to the notion that a reporter is X and a blogger is Y.
The roles are still be defined -- and I'm one of those who's trying to figure out what's next. You want me to be a traditional reporter, which is exactly what we don't want to be.
The business model for traditional reporting is dead. I certainly respect First Amendment reporting; that's why I still emphasize documents. But that doesn't mean First Amendment reporting can't be edgy, provocative, interactive, experimental.
I'm not afraid of making a fool of myself if that's what's required to learn new ways of reporting and publishing. Why are you?
yeesh. I feel bad for you Jim. Harassments by homophobes aside, you really did blow it today. This isn't coming from some corporate shill. I certainly have no axe to grind with you, other than how you came off at today's shareholder meeting and how you are hyping your performance on the blog. As an observer and journalist, I can what I gleaned from your performance and where you failed. You had an opportunity that you lost as soon as you demanded Dubow acknowledge you by name. It denegrated into silly questions about VIP seating and asking, once again, about foundation money wasted on Dubow's personal pet project and Dickey's golf outing - two questions repeatedly hashed over in this blog.
Photographing a 68-year-old director and contending she showed up the CEO? That's a real stretch, too. The question is, where do you go from here? Do we really care about Al Neuharth's illegitimate daughter? She's 48 years old. He hasn't been CEO in 20 years. I suggest you take a few days off and close the blog down so you don't come under repeated attack and figure out your next move.
The whole notion of unbiased objectivity in journalism is dangerous in the first place. It's impossible to be without some kind of bias, so claiming to be neutral on every issue will set up the readers to be disappointed when they notice the bias creeping in. I think that's why a lot of newspapers that claim to be neutral are in trouble: half of the readers say the paper is too liberal, and the other half say the paper is too conservative.
I think that projects like this blog -- where readers can understand where the writer is coming from -- should be part of the new journalism. (Though, I'd make every commenter register with a unique username, to foster a community, and require them all to send in photocopies of their IDs, to prevent sockpuppetry and/or corporate manipulation. And I'dprotect their privacy at all costs.)
I think the questions about seating were relevant. How can a board answer to shareholders if they won't even face them?
This is a very valid corporate governance question.
10:05 PM, add me to the dumb f**k's list too.
Sure Jim, fine. The role of reporter will be reinvented over the coming years; there's no question about that. There also no question that for some of the old timers, the transition will either not happen or will be a bit rough as everyone adapts to the changing landscape.
On a somewhat deeper level, I know that you are intellectually curious to know how this will all play out. What does it mean for the industry? What does it mean for all of your friends and former coworkers at newspapers and media all across the country?
But one thing was very clear today: no matter the format, no matter the venue, there will always be a line between a reporter and a member of the paparatzi (sp?). Someone else summed it up well when they said that today belonged on TMZ. So while it may get you some more notoriety with the AP articles and the fact that everyone in that room now knows your name, and while it may get you more site traffic today, it is not something that most media consumers would come back to any more than you care about what's going on with some washed-up pop star. It's the trainwreck mentality, Jim. We're all going to watch, craning our neck to get a better view--until it's all over. Then we go home and forget that you, and the sort of "reporting" that you practiced today ever existed.
Enough! Everyone who doesn't like this blog, leave then. Go back to your hard-hitting Gannetteer. And if you thought you could have done a better job than Jim at the annual charade, why didn't you?
I believe Jim is on the cover of next month's Gannetteer
Jim,
Thanks for representing us at the meeting. Much appreciated.
ClarkKentGannett@aol.com
Jim,
No comments on the trolls or how you came across at the meeting or any of that -- I wanted to address what you said about reporters and bloggers.
Unfortunately, there is a difference between the two. The only bloggers I'll listen to are ones who have a decent idea of the ethics and processes of journalism. Everyone else is just Joe Schmoe flapping his lips.
That's the problem -- we've allowed everyone to feel like they're a reporter. They're not. I've had a bunch of kids come through my office over the years who thought they were going to win the Pulitzer with their pithy comments, radical style and reinvention of the journalistic wheel. I ended up spending more time trying to keep these kids from getting us sued than I did editing their copy.
The online world has allowed the op/ed writer -- what most bloggers really are -- to blur the lines between their opinion and fact. That's not new or exciting, that's damned dangerous, and I don't mean to the institution of journalism. I mean it's dangerous to the country, because too many bloggers are hacks and they endanger legitimate journalists' work, because the public doesn't like a biased reporter.
First Amendment reporting can only be "edgy" with respect to drive, determination and thoroughness on the part of the writer. If it has a bias or an agenda, the writer and his/her editor better damn well know how to keep it hidden under many layers. Once we say we don't care about that, is the day I start to worry about legal limitations being placed on the amendment.
I refuse to call some random guy with a tinfoil hat and an Internet account a "reporter," despite the fact they're popping up on every street in the country, warning me of conspiracies, aliens from Mars or that the local mayor likes to fricassee cats on his backyard grill on Thursday nights.
If that sounds like I'm being elitist, good. That's how I mean to come across. This is a profession and a craft that should be reserved for people with an educated background, decent enough command of language and who don't use their blog -- or their "reporting" -- as a means to push a social or political agenda.
FYI: I'm reading all your comments about my participation in yesterday's annual meeting. Lots of interesting stuff. I don't agree with it all. But I want to hear a lot more, too.
Great posts, but people aren't getting to the point.
The point of yesterday is Jim revealed himself to be an out-of-control wacko with no credibility, And everyone should have seen it coming. His posts during the previous days were over the top and foolish. He ignored information that was readily available to him, and then he tried to create numbers out of thin air.
This idea that the old model is dead and he is some sort of revolutionary blogger is another of his weak lines of defense.
He failed, and he wrecked his credibility.
2:52 AM, I share your belief that we're in trouble as a nation if someone smarter than anyone apparently in Gannett doesn't come up with a business model to support strong, objective journalism.
However, I disagree totally with your thoughts on blogs and Jim in particular. A blog is just a look at facts as seen by one individual. The Internet is a prism, multidimensional, and a blog is one of billions of facet. News corporations have failed because they have no vision to use the Internet beyond the one-dimensional news objective model.
If you're confused by that, you don't understand what you're reading.
Under corporate ownership, newspapers have lost journalistic ethics. They fundamentally misunderstand their product.
It takes only one disregard of the public's trust to destroy credibility, and all newspaper companies I know of have done that. At least with a blog, you KNOW you're seeing facts through the blogger's honest eyes, whether you agree or disagree with how he/she interprets the facts.
The questions Jim asked and the facts he posts in HIS blog may not be what you would have asked, or what you would have blogged, but you didn't go there. He did. We're reading about what he saw and thought, not what he thinks a majority of readers would want to see.
People who grew up with the Internet understand that. The dinosaurs in the newsrooms and corporate offices are going exactly the way of dinosaurs, unable to adapt.
On another note: Troll alert. How stupid can some people be to think these real-time criticisms are unique, average-Joe posters? Only 300 total people could be in the room, and there was, perhaps, some kind of internal video feed to Gannett execs who didn't have real work to do. Use your head, people!
I think it was rather juvenile for you, Jim, to force Dubow to address you by name. On top of it, where was the promised live blog?
I watched the Gannett shareholder meeting video to learn something about the company. Instead I saw some crazy old man blathering on and on terrorizing the meeting and having nothing to say (it was very clear his mother never paid him any attention and he was desperate for any type of attention) -- I was shocked at his obvious dementia. And then an even more psychotic you, Jim Hopkins, get up there and scared me you are so clearly mentally ill. You obviously have no friends or family in your life that care about you or they would take you to a mental hospital immediately. I honestly thought you were a homeless person at first because you couldn't even use the microphone and kept weaving like a drunk person. You think you "stuck it to them"? You made yourself look like the craziest stupidest asshole I have ever seen in my life, and I can't believe you are allowed to terrorize a shareholder meeting like that. I am absolutely shocked that security didn't cart you off -- you CLEARLY need some mental help and are delusional and schizophrenic and quite possibly pose a danger to others. And no, I don't work for Gannett and never have. I found this blog because I searched to find out what happened to the crazy man after the meeting and if he got some professional mental help.
Post a Comment