Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Style | On interviewing a CEO before 1,000 people

Now, I don't know that 1,000 people were watching me in the auditorium or on the company network. But with repeat viewings, the numbers ought to get that high.

I interviewed him prosecutor-style, weaving commentary into the question, because you're trying to win over an audience. In my first year as a reporter in Arkansas at The Pine Bluff Commercial, a savings and loan executive, Del "Pepsi" Brannon, ordered me out of the headquarters one fall day in 1986. He rang up my editor, Don Williams, and chewed him out.

Later, Don delighted in telling me that Brannon complained I'd grilled him and the other executives as though I were a prosecutor. FirstSouth soon failed; I had uncovered the first signs of bank fraud, which I laid at the door of its outside general counsel, E. Harley Cox Jr. He was later convicted of bank fraud, and served a prison sentence. (President Clinton pardoned Cox on the way out of the White House.)

Williams, and later Max Brantley of The Arkansas Gazette; then John Costa at The Idaho Statesman; and Stan Macdonald at The Courier-Journal, and John and Jane Does 1-500 at USA Today, encouraged me to push and push and push some more for the truth. I loved my job then, and I love it even more now.

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.

16 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I understand whyyou did it that way, but all of the body language was undermining your words. Dubow had a defensive posture behind his lectern, and his body language said he was easily deflecting your questions.

    It's hard when you are practically naked (with no lectern to hide behind). But I bet if you found a body language coach (do they have those in SF?) and showed them your performance, they might be able to give you a few pointers.

    Good job, though. Way to stick it to 'em.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jim, please don't prolong this discussion (and the trolls' attacks) on your performance at the shareholder meeting.

    Let's get back to ferreting out real news about what the poohbahs and pinheads in the Crystal Palace are doing to drive this once-great company into the ground.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I haven't commented before on your performance because I don't think performance matters much in our business. You did fine. You asked questions, and got answers.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks, 10:56 PM, for your enlightened commentary. Let's hope that Jim begins moderating posts soon, so that only the adults can post, and you can go back to spankin' it in the basement.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jim I liked you before the share holder meeting however what you acted and looked like on that video you are a disgrace to ever say you worked for Gannett. I still currently work at a small paper and I would put my head down if you name ever came up with regards to Gannett. You are truly a joke and a half! Get a new job because im sorry to say this but you are washed up!! Best luck with whatever you do in life but please please dont attend another shareholder meeting. Sell your one share and save some dignity.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  14. haha nice i like that one

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jim -

    I say this with love.

    Many of us started reading the blog at a time when we were desperate for information. Information about our futures and our lives. Information we weren't getting from the places we should have been getting it from. And this was the place to get it. It was the biggest and bestest water-cooler conversation ever.

    Lately, and especially seeing the stock holders meeting footage, it has turned into your sick, sour personal vendetta. And it isn't pretty to watch anymore.

    It's disappointing. And it's sad. And I don't even like kool aide. They are a bumbling bunch of fools, no question. That does not, by default, exclude yourself from the category.

    And I am sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Jim -

    I say this with love.

    Many of us started reading the blog at a time when we were desperate for information. Information about our futures and our lives. Information we weren't getting from the places we should have been getting it from. And this was the place to get it. It was the biggest and bestest water-cooler conversation ever.

    Lately, and especially seeing the stock holders meeting footage, it has turned into your sick, sour personal vendetta. And it isn't pretty to watch anymore.

    It's disappointing. And it's sad. And I don't even like kool aide. They are a bumbling bunch of fools, no question. That does not, by default, exclude yourself from the category.

    And I am sorry.

    4/29/2009 11:50 PM"

    I echo that thought. Sadly.

    ReplyDelete

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.