I received the following moments ago from Chief Digital Officer Chris Saridakis (left).The influential senior vice president is responding to my questions early today about an unfolding controversy over privacy rights of a Wausau Daily Herald reader whose identity was given to a government official he criticized anonymously on the paper's website.
Hi Jim,
I do not have much to comment about this particular issue in Wausau. With regard to it being a "mess," what part of the Internet isn't a mess, when it comes to content sharing, redistribution rights, privacy, fact checking, digital rights, etc.?
Best,
Chris
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.
[Photo: Gannett]
One need look no further than this response to see who is most qualified to succeed Dumbow...
ReplyDeleteGood for Saridakis. Glad to see someone in the Crystal Towers is responding to questions from reporters these days, even if it is an off-the-hip response.
ReplyDeleteWow....
ReplyDeleteThat response is frightening. And every reader and website user at every Gannett newspaper should know what cavelier attitude this company has about privacy.
This is chilling.
I gave Saridakis a hard time about his flip comments in regard to the furloughs, but let's give him credit for this.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this shows his attitude to be cavalier. I think it shows him to be honest. The Web is a mess and will continue to be so until we get more strong court rulings on who is legally responsible for what gets published and what represents copyright infringement.
Admit it. The Web is a great tool, but it's like the Wild West out there. And, as much as I like to bash Gannett, the company has no control over that. It only has control over how it behaves in such a setting.
Messes happen when there is not a well thought out, clearly articulated and uniformly enforced corporate policy on comments. How do descriptions of graphic sex fly in Cincy but unflattering comments about a coach get deleted in The Ville? Truth be told, there has been no consistent moderation because it was too expensive. But now a bee is in someone's bonnet and By God, we're moderating, or outing posters we don't like. While you're at it Chris, take a look at all of the libelous drivel posted on Topix. Gannett could take some bold steps and demand Topix be cleaned up. Take the initiative.
ReplyDeleteHe's right in that the web is a "mess", with privacy and copyright issues among the biggest ones. But as an influential member of an influential company (especially one that deals in journalism, print and online), he should be someone willing to offer insight and change into some of those issues.
ReplyDeleteHe's got you there: the internet is indeed a mess, a big festering cesspool of anger and misinformation. Way to go Sardi.
ReplyDeleteSmug.
ReplyDelete"We're just lil' ol' Gannett--why should we expend much time and thought on this issue?"
ReplyDeleteSmug, perhaps. Realistic, definitely.
ReplyDeleteThe only way to solve it is to hire people in shifts to sit at a computer and monitor comments 24/7, with clear-cut guidelines, written in plain English (not legalese) about what to allow and what to shitcan.
And what media company is going to do that these days?
Bravo Chris!!! I love this guy. He tells it like it is. What he is probably referring to is how screwed up even Gannett is, let alone the internet.
ReplyDeleteI am happy to see that he responds toyou Jim. He seems like a "real" person.
Nice response. He is not smug. We need more people like him in the executive ranks.
ReplyDeleteUh, actually it's not a mess everywhere.
ReplyDeleteBut if you look at Gannett sites all day, I can see where one would reach that conclusion.
Is Chris forgetting that his beloved Pointroll used fonts for years that were not licensed? Admitting the mess is one thing, being part of the problem is another.
ReplyDelete@1:12PM Just like 99% of the commenters on this blog, am I right?
ReplyDelete@3:12 PM: So, for an example, where is your shining bastion of perfection, in terms of privacy, digital rights, &etc. Even sites like Facebook can't get it right all the time, and get called out on it... much like they did not more than a month ago.
The bigger you are, the harder it will be to regulate, period.
It's likely an internal issue they're working on, and he really can't say much more about it than this. The fact that he said anything at all is a wonder - and he should be lauded for that kind of behaviour.
People can harp on him all they want, but that kind of attitude will only encourage his transformation into a state of Dubow-ness. Which is fine for all of the people who are ready for the company to roll over and die, but I'd rather Chris remain as near the top as possible. He's one of the few with a good head on his shoulders.
I like his response. I also like the fact that he is not afraid to respond directly to you Jim.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the internet is still being ruled by wreckless people and a government that has no clue about regulation. Privacy is a big issue, but there is no standard for companies like Gannett to work off of.
We definitely want more people like Saridakis in senior management.
Hmm. Interesting issue. I'm going to stand on the side that says Saridakis was unconcionably glib. He's not a nobody in this; he's the big cheese.
ReplyDeleteAnd the core issue isn't that hard for him to figure out. He gets paid well enough to think it through: The standards have to be applied the same to everyone, and the recourse for the average Joe is to respond as he wishes in the same forum as the criticism. Moderators call it "self correction" and rely on it.
If Wausau offered the otherwise unpublished email address to the supervisor, shame on whoever did that, unless the paper does it for everyone asking for that information (doubtful). It makes the newspaper's interactive feature a sham.
Most people post anonymously not because they are ashamed of what they have to say, but just because it's not important who is saying it and because online law so far protects their right to do so without libel risk (the supervisor should have talked to a knowledgeable lawyer before writing his ill-advised letter).
3:12 p.m. too funny and all too true.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSaridakis' lack of interest in protecting the intellectual property created by employees within his own company is disheartening.
ReplyDeleteThis is all really funny. On this blog everyone is always defending Jim by saying he owns the blog and he can do with it as he want. Well, seems to me like there is no difference with Gannett's position on how they handle information as well. They own, they can do as they please.
ReplyDeleteSuck it up. losers.
OK ... let's all step back for a minute. Regardless of your position on the compaines Saridakis created or the fact that he is Gannett senior management, he is an outsider to the newspaper industry -- an industry that is guarded by its traditionalism. This is a good thing in my book (and I loathe Gannett for what they did to this innovator). He is a business guy who has a rap sheet of creating positive Web businesses. I suspect that he understands the power of the blog more than a lot of folks. It doesn't appear as though his blood has been "contaminated" by the tradionalism of the industry or of Gannett. I suspect that the Crystal Towers is probably more of a prison than a palace for a guy like this. I'm sure he often hears "this is how it's always been done and such other phrases by corporate folk."
ReplyDeleteWe should be celebrating the fact that someone from corporate understands that our industry has been turned upside down and there is nothing that can be done to fix it. Now, we all need to work -- as painful as it might be for some -- within the new paramaters. IMO
Jim,
ReplyDeleteDid Tara or Kate respond to you? I am part of a local newspaper (a rather LARGE one) and we believe that this is a local publisher issue and not a Saridakis Digital issue.
I actually think his response was dead on. He does not know the facts and probably has no need to know them because this is a Bob Dickey issue.
We all know that Bob Dickey would not know how to respond to Jim without having Michelle Krans write the note, Kate edit it and Tara hitting the send button.
So, I am actually glad Saridakis was honest in his response and right to the point.
I would like to see how our Head of Newspaper, Content One and other executives at Gannett would respond to this note.
The more I read this, it is less of a Digital mess and more of a Gannett Legal mess (and a USCP mess).
ReplyDeleteThe way it works here is that each local paper runs their own operation (print and digital). The corporate digital group led by Saridakis doesn't really deal with how the local sites enforce privacy concerns.
Gannett's legal department is probably the one who should get your note Jim.
It seems like Jim sent this to Saridakis knowing that he would get a response from him rather than to anyone else at Gannett who would stonewall him.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteIt would be great to have you interview Saridakis. I am sure he has a lot on his mind and is not afraid to share it. Anyway of arranging that?
Don't hold your breath waiting for Bob, Michelle, Kate, Tara to respond to this question. The only person who is bold enough to respond to it was Saridakis.
ReplyDeleteHe didn't answer the question about the mess, but I like his perspective. This guy grew up in the digital space and say what you want about his arrogance, he built a bunch of successful companies and knows a lot more about the internet than most in Gannett.
I actually think his response is more telling about the problems within Gannett than it is about privacy on the internet.
This guy know a ton about privacy. After all, he was one of the architects of Doubleclick, the same company that was being sued by every state attorney general for privacy issues back in the days!!!
Jim, you probably should be more direct in your questions to him in the future so he won't have so much wiggle room.
ReplyDeleteI think it's scary that "what part of the Internet isn't a mess, when it comes to content sharing, redistribution rights, privacy, fact checking, digital rights, etc.?" is an acceptable response. Does that mean that we should just say "eff it" and let whatever happens happen just because it's all such a big, hopeless mess?
The issue at hand is not that anonymous people can post unflattering things about public officials. It's that this guy demanded to know who was saying those things and found out, apparently because the paper gave him the info. If it's true, what was the reasoning behind it?
Smug or smart? I think smart.
ReplyDeleteHe replied in almost Twitter-speed.
240 characters by my count.
At 140 it would have been:
"I do not have much to comment about this particular issue in Wausau. With regard to it being a "mess," what part .."
with some sort of short url on the end to the full quote.
I hate that.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete10:56 and 10:57,
ReplyDeleteSince when is it OK for a newspaper to be a tool for any politician? I got into this business to keep an eye on politicians, not to be a way for them to threaten and silence their opposition. What is this, Cuba? The Middle East?
If the posts were not threats, if they weren't libelous, then Gannett blew it by turning over information on the poster to the politician.
It's no different than the threats that were made against Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward during Watergate, as they began to close in on the facts and on Nixon. And we know the outcome of that one.
The anonymous comments on this blog that are criticisms of Dubow and the rest of his band are no different than someone criticizing a politician. Jim has removed comments that were over the line. He has removed comments that were libelous or flat-out personal attacks.
In that regard, Jim is a helluva lot more responsible than a lot of sites out there. You don't know what a joy it is to be blasted by name on a site over a controversial story and have someone go so far as to post specifics about you, your child and your spouse and your residence on said site because he is so angry with a story you wrote and because he is trying to whip up a frenzy over what he perceives your stance on the topic to be. It happened to me, and to my knowledge, to this day that information remains -- regardless of the fact that I repeatedly asked the site's owner to take it down.
I think Jim is 10 times more responsible with the comments on this blog than what I experienced.
That IS
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete