One reason it's just plain unhealthy to mention names and co-workers in a blog like this is that in truth, journalism us a very small business. A lot of people, including future employers from other organizations, visit here. To be posting that your former boss called you talentless . . . is a (doubled-edged) sword. . . . It would be as if you put on your resume, reason for leaving last job: I was called talentless at a staff meeting. . . .Similarly, naming people as jerks, over their heads, etc., as is done so freely by many posters here, really does hurt those people who are named. Good! some might argue.
But please think about what everyone is saying about your colleagues, your bosses, your underlings. Being criticized comes with the territory of being a manager. But being eviscerated is something else again. No one ends up looking very good -- the target or the vindictive person doing it.
And just as employers and schools check out Facebook and similar things, so, too, will employers potentially be looking here and elsewhere. Saying you were called talentless, unfairly or not, just doesn't seem a very good career move. Nor is bashing your boss, where you look like a problem worker. Just some advice to us all.
What constitutes a "public figure'' in Gannett Land? Anyone at the local operating committee level? The publisher, general manager or other top executive only? 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.
[Today's front page, Newseum]
In Gannett, if you're still working, you really need to be careful about what you say about your coworkers, editors and publishers. If you move to maximize your opportunity, you just never know when you will run into someone you worked with or were bossed by at another Gannett newspaper ... or, increasingly, outside Gannett.
ReplyDeleteIt happened to me five times and I was SO glad that I kept my feelings to myself.
In my view, anybody in Gannett who has a public face.
ReplyDeleteThat goes for Publishers, top Editors and columnists. I think anyone who accepts speaking engagements outside the newsroom and those who do radio or TV commentary, even part time, are public figures.
Everyone on the editorial board, too. They make their living writing opinion and they catch all kinds of heck when that runs counter to the majority view of the community.
Part of the frustration in Gannettland is that you get evaluated/reviewed but no one seeks your input about thoughts on your supervisors. When I worked at a NYTRNG paper, one of the highlights of my experience there was having an outside firm conduct employee evaluations of their supervisors. Maybe Gannett could get some insight about why there is so much dislike for management if this were done.
ReplyDeleteTry being eviscerated in front of your own department. 99% of the management is OK at USA TODAY, but that slutty 1% is grafted into departments and prance around like they are untouchable. 1:03 was correct; no one seeks your input "upward," or about thoughts on your supervisors. It will NEVER change.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree. USAT has significant problems in some key departments -- one in particular. Those problems were and are being made worse by awful top manager(s) who make a heck of a lot of money and have placed themselves in power through less than logical or even honorable ways. Take a long look at how these people rose to power and you will see what I am talking about.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't condone anyone going after them in a blog if they were just mediocre or the same old, same old, worn out managers. But a couple powerful folks are far worse than average. They are not good for the newspaper, and in some cases are making work needlessly difficult for staffers all because of ego, turf wars and a lack of integrity. They've been negligent in some ways and have made absolutely dreadful decisions.
If I mention the department most guilty of this, this comment will probably be removed under the new rules Jim seems to be adhering to. I think most staffers can figure out the department I am speaking of and the managers who invaded as sheeps in wolves clothing. Go about your business with them with caution. Eventually they will be outed and hopefully some journalistic sanity and intelligence will be restored. Until then, don't look to that group to elevate the content of this newspaper in any meaningful manner. Don't expect brilliance to come from the corner office. If you think they are on your side, show empathy, etc., think again.
I hope this protects their identity enough to make it onto the blog, yet still sends out a clear message that a major problem exists in the newsroom. It is important to the paper that some people wake up and not assume that all is well in this one department. I also don't see how identifying them, even vaguely, hurts the credibility of any of the many competent people who work at the paper. In fact, I think challenging them and bringing this to light can actually be a good thing if the new head honchos do something about it.
I encourage everyone who cares about the paper, meeting deadlines, getting things right and so forth to approach John in a professional manner and let him know what is broken and getting worse in some cases. It's his job to fix it.
I also favor people speaking out here in a tone that is constructive. That is what this blog is all about. Just avoid the cheap shots or wild speculation. Try to speak from first-hand knowledge and leave out the personal grudges or name-calling, and all should be well, I think.
If I don't see this on the blog, then I will know the nature of this blog has changed for the worse and that once again Gannett employees who truly care are going to go silent again.
One more thing...Someone said 99 percent of USAT management is OK. That is far too generous. I would say 75 percent of managers hover in the OK range, 20 percent are above average and 5 percent are just not good managers, make poor decisions and really have no leadership skills whatsoever. I am defining leadership by getting things done, functioning, motivating, making the tough by right choices -- not by how many folks think you're swell.
Amir, sorry to disagree with you but I would rate no more than 50% of USAT management as being "OK." The newsroom has many editors with profound managerial weaknesses. Fortunately for them, they have found ways to hide their flaws from the top and even from some staffers. Some top editors and publishers made it easy for these managers to fall off the radar screen. They were as much to blame for the troubles now in the newsroom as anyone.
ReplyDeleteA couple other things:
- I believe we should all respectfully speak up more, whether it's here, or in large meetings or smaller gatherings. I don't think that hurts us or the newspaper to identify known problems or problem people or problem procedures. I do believe some editors need to be removed or demoted and should never have risen as far as they have. They do not possess the right stuff. Some are bullies. Some want to be friends with everyone. Others just don't have the background to make important decisions that make sense to all without the salesmanship. Too many PR managers and not enough backbone or street smarts for my tastes. There also are a couple editors who don't even rise to the level of bad managers, but I don't want to stoop to name calling, so I will leave it at that. I think they know who they are and know the injustices they've committed. How they sleep at night is truly a wonder.
- If a manager can't take the heat on this blog, they shouldn't be managers. I agree that childish attacks do no good and do ask everyone to refrain from that. But there are people out there with legitimate gripes who have a right to air those grievances and to expose wrongdoing when it becomes a pattern and not just a minor slip up. USAT has had many problems and losses in recent years that deserve airing and analysis. I hope Mr. Hopkins will dig a big more and find out more about what's going on in the dark corners of his old newsroom. USAT is a major Gannett player, and I would like to see more coverage and comment on it here.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteYou can critique a manager's performance and handling of people without making it personal. What's kind of ironic, though, is that many of these bad managers are bad because they manage based on personal feelings and not facts. They play favorites based on who kisses up and penalize or marginalize others who don't.
ReplyDeleteIf there was one thing I could eliminate at usat, it would be the blatant and personal favoritism that guides these problem editors and managers. They exist in every department and section, but do seem to be a particular problem in one part of the newsroom.
99 percent of managers are ok? I don't think so. Some are brutal. Others a little too friendly. Most resort to something less than honesty to navigate their careers.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteWhen I offer criticism, I always try to offer it in a constructive tone. Sadly, it's not always viewed that way.
I also try to follow my mother's advice: If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. That's why I can't say much about Gannett's current top management or board of directors.
Finally, I really do believe that if you're going to name someone in a comment, you have a moral obligation to identify yourself.
One of the best things Al Neuharth ever did (and he did a lot of them, though there were many failings as well) was to forbid the use of anonymous sources in USA Today.
73s,
John M. Simpson
Former Deputy Editor USA Today
Currently:
Consumer Advocate (aka Hell-raiser)
Consumer Watchdog.
When names are named, particularly by people with inside, intimate knowledge of the workings and history of one department at the nation's newspaper, the S is going to hit the fan. The top managers - past and present - I would imagine are concerned about their secrets getting out, which reminds me of the old phrase about keeping your enemies close. They must not believe in that philosophy. They've alienated a whole host of people who all have a lot of bad feelings. When that day comes for some frank discussion, I will follow Mr. Simpson's advice and give my name. I do not, however, agree with his mom's advice and won't pull any punches. Some people are just so rotten that they must be exposed for who and what they really are. Stay tuned. If Jim permits it, I have a feeling some interesting tales are about to be told.
ReplyDelete@10:07 pm
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth I had "a lot of bad feelings" about the way I was pushed out the door at USA Today in 1999.
It taught me a lot about the morals of corporate America. I think I've moved beyond that now and offer these thoughts to my former colleagues:
1. Organize. The Guild may not be the best option. Consider SEIU or the Laborers Union.
2. While there is an understandable reluctance to identify one's self when speaking critically of management, your standing, ability to rally support and most importantly to be taken seriously is increased exponentially when you can identify yourself.
I do hope the day comes when you will feel comfortable giving your name. That's the only way Gannett can fix its problems, which -- I think -- is what most of us who read this blog really want.
Oh, and please call me John or anything else you want, just not Mr. Simpson. That was my Dad.
73s,
John
I agree with 12:57. Publishers, high level editors and publicly visible columnists, etc., are public figures.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty visible at my newspaper and readers criticize me publicly now and again. I believe they have the right to do so and I support that right. Don't see any reason to do it differently here.
"STAND!" is my anthem, from Sly & The Family Stone back in 1968. They're also from the Bay area, FWIW. Not only valid criticism of some management is warranted, but self-criticism (ijtihad in arabic, "inner struggle") is self-eviscerating and good for the soul.
ReplyDelete10:47. It seems that the only way people leave USAT is with "bad feelings." That speaks volumes about the place, in my opinion. I can't even begin to explain how horribly I was treated while at the paper. Used and rarely supported by the top editor in my dept. But I hung in there, tried to be professional, thought I had earned a degree of respect and loyalty. Yet in the end, I was cast out under a cloud of lies and deceit. It makes a person pretty upset. Not easy to find closure after giving your blood, sweat and tears to a place for so long. It also gives the paper a pretty bad and worsening rep in the journalism community -- not that they actually practice good journalism there anymore. There are so many former USAT employees with nothing good to say about the place. Some, such as yourself, were pretty high up the food chain.
ReplyDeleteEven those who try to leave on good terms and say nice things publicly often harbor deep resentment about how they were treated at the flagship. Get any one of the big names who left recently to sit down and have a couple beers with you and you'll likely hear similar stories of disappointment and betrayal in the end. It just seems inevitable that no matter who you are, or how in good favor you are for a period of time, eventually you're going to be ousted in some fairly disgusting manner. These days, it's not good to be a journalist without a paycheck. So I feel for everyone who has left USAT without a safety net.
There is just something about that place that eventually turns almost every relationship toxic. In my opinion, it has gotten worse since your time there.
I don't know if organizing is the answer. I suppose it couldn't hurt. But something has to change in the culture, too. The names and faces at the top change from time to time, as do some of the MEs, yet the same games are played. The same behind-the-scenes plotting exists. The playing of favorites. The lack of accountability. The rewarding of the truly inept. The punishing of those who speak out. The problems are so deep, most of the top managers so unaware or simply not bright enough to fix things, that I don't see a bright future for the paper. I seem more games, more false and forced smiles, more unwillingness to return to principles that built the brand.
The same behind-the-scenes plotting exists. The playing of favorites. The lack of accountability. The rewarding of the truly inept. The punishing of those who speak out. The problems are so deep, most of the top managers so unaware or simply not bright enough to fix things, that I don't see a bright future for the paper. I see more games, more false and forced smiles, more unwillingness to return to principles that built the brand.
ReplyDelete5/06/2009 9:22 AM
Yep, that's about sums it up and is alive and well at Gannett and USAT. What a sad story for a once great company.........