Saturday, May 09, 2009
Saturday | May 9 | Your News & Comments
Can't find the right spot for your comment? Post it here, in this open forum. Real Time Comments: parked here, 24/7. (Earlier editions.)
49 comments:
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Since Gannett won't listen on how to save a ton of money.......I am taking my ideas to Sam Zell...he damn sure will listen.
ReplyDeleteI just can't understand why Gannett just won't listen to it's employees input on cost saving ideas. Hey no problem guys....I have it covered : )
Reposting this from after midnight on previous day (discussion seems over there, and I would like to encourage response):
ReplyDeleteRegarding the NJ noise from 8:19 pm:
I totally support the comments of that poster (I believe it was 12:14 p.m., not 12:15.)
I wrote one of the comments asking Jim to let us know where he stands on the 'mission of this blog.' Someone had angrily said it was only for complaining former employees, and that those of us hoping for improvement at Gannett and wanting to exchange constructive information and ideas should, basically, go away.
In the past Jim has said he promotes constructive outlooks and discussion. I watched all day for his reply, but there was only silence.
I will also say it took an awfully long time for that question to get posted initially.
I am disappointed. Jim: are you really just here for the angry people now?
It's kind of nice that it gets quiet here at night right now. Means more people are able to sleep. Wish I could.
ReplyDeleteHope it means you are getting some rest, too, Jim
Oh, 5/09/2009 3:30 AM, you write so forlornly ...
ReplyDeleteThink about this. This blog is not a message board between you and Jim. To Jim's joy, a multitude of readers frequent it and leave comments.
You are the only one who seems to think that Jim should jump up and answer your comments and questions personally and quickly. And you seem to be the only one who is upset when he doesn't.
[BTW, I don't like it when Jim posts that it has been XXX time since asked corporate a question, either. Just seems lame to me.][
3:30 am: I apologize for not responding sooner; I really did mean to, so I'm glad you reminded me.
ReplyDeleteThis blog is for everyone who has an interest in the Gannett Co. It is not just for complaining former employees -- or complaining current employees.
Now, it's perfectly understandable that folks who are unhappy would speak up more frequently than others; that is simply human nature.
Still, I'm always looking for different perspectives on Gannett: Variety is what makes this blog more interesting. That means I really, truly want to hear from readers who love their jobs, and who want to make Gannett stronger, so it'll be around for another generation of readers, employees and investors.
Jim Hopkins said...
ReplyDelete8:45 pm: Good news is welcome; lazy readers such as you are not.
I keep deleting this item because I posted it on Thursday, on this blog's homepage.
http://tinyurl.com/pv7pog
So, you are wrong about my motives -- and late with the news, too. Please stop wallpapering someone else's reporting on my blog.
5/08/2009 9:42 PM
So you finally responded. Good for you. I was hoping my strategy would pay off. By the way, I am still awaiting a response from the Tara post.
Unfortunately, I disagree with your position that you welcome all good news. I've posted other good news items here that have been deleted for no other apparent reason.
I've also challenged you on specific issues with no results other than deletions. For example, earlier this week you were the first to post on one of your own daily threads with a gay comment. I challenged you and all you later did was delete both my post and your post. That wasn't a response, only a deletion.
This kind of behavior and associated censorship further proves that you are unwilling to acknolwedge errors you make. We all make mistakes but you apparently want to appear perfect to the masses.
It would be much better if, when you delete a post, you provide a simple reason such as duplicate post, homophobic comment, poor use of someone's name, that sort of thing. Then we would at least have some idea regarding what is being kept from us. Don't we deserve that respect as readers?
"Still, I'm always looking for different perspectives on Gannett: Variety is what makes this blog more interesting. That means I really, truly want to hear from readers who love their jobs, and who want to make Gannett stronger, so it'll be around for another generation of readers, employees and investors.
ReplyDelete5/09/2009 7:36 AM"
OK Jim, prove it. Go for some balance with yor own reporting. Seek out some of the good news. If you truly want Gannett to succees for a future generation put meaning to your words. If you look back I'm confident you will find a very different tone common to the items you post and even the way you write them.
I'm just saying...
Oh, 5/09/2009 3:30 AM, you write so forlornly ...
ReplyDeleteThink about this. This blog is not a message board between you and Jim. To Jim's joy, a multitude of readers frequent it and leave comments.
You are the only one who seems to think that Jim should jump up and answer your comments and questions personally and quickly. And you seem to be the only one who is upset when he doesn't.
[BTW, I don't like it when Jim posts that it has been XXX time since asked corporate a question, either. Just seems lame to me.][
5/09/2009 6:58 AM
I beg to differ. I am someone else and I want answers as well. I am someone else that becomes upset when I pose a legitimate question that goes unanswered while Jim does his dance with dubow.
So if people who come here don't like the way it's run, why do they come back? I think most of us want to debate Gannett issues, not read how much you don't like Jim or this blog. Go somewhere else or start your own!
ReplyDeleteAs Freud said, sometimes a troll is just a troll.
ReplyDeleteSo if people who come here don't like the way it's run, why do they come back? I think most of us want to debate Gannett issues, not read how much you don't like Jim or this blog. Go somewhere else or start your own!
ReplyDelete5/09/2009 8:11 AM
We come back to do our best to create some semblance of balance to some of the BS being spread around here. The crazy things some people come up with is also entertaining from time-to-time.
The Freud missquote is a good example of something entertaining but also needing balance.
We also show up to challenge Jim and hold him accountable. If we don't, who will? He should be able to handle a little challenge now and then and also be able to adequately support his positions. After all, we don't want to see his mind messed up, do we?
"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it"
- William Pitt, the Elder, The Earl of Chatham and British Prime Minister from 1766 to 1778
"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."
ReplyDeleteThere is a funny thing about this definition and the way the term is used around here. As I’ve seen it used, it defines only those “suspected goons” who are supposedly trying to include irrelevant or off topic messages. And even comments pointing fingers at suspected “goons” often can fit the definition of a troll.
It would seem to me that nearly every comment fits some form of the remainder of the definition above. Aside from off-topic comments, I rarely see a comment that isn’t controversial or inflammatory. People are talked about, rumors are spread and no one knows what is what.
If we use the definition about (from Wikipedia) I posit that 90% of the comments on this blog are left by trolls.
Jim still has not posted the performance evaluations he said he would show us.
ReplyDeleteI posit that Gannett was on to his mental instability, and that's why he's not posting them.
9:05 am: I haven't posted any because I've been busy with other stuff. I'm going to dig up my last one, for 2007, however, as soon as I can pull it out of storage.
ReplyDelete9:05 -- Why do you have such interest in his performance evaluations? One's evaluation in a past job has nothing to do with his performance in a current job.
ReplyDeleteIf the evaluation is good, will you call him a whiner who is bitter for no reason?
If it's bad, will you say he's a terrible journalist and always has been?
I just don't see the point. For Jim, there is no good reason to respond to your request ... unless he simply wants to prove that he will jump through hoops for someone like you.
The work Jim is doing with this blog speaks for itself. If you like the approach, great, he deserves a good evaluation for his "current" work. If you don't like the work, he deserves a "bad" review. Who cares what somebody said about him two years ago? His numbers show that he has a following.
As for this blog, it's pretty clear that Jim looks at Gannett with a critical eye, but isn't that deserved? I don't get the feeling that he would bury the news if the company suddenly revives newspapers, helping stock prices soar to an all-time high and increasing circulation at all properties.
An extreme example? Not really because the opposite is happening.
Despite the recent surge in GCI stock, we are still trading at under $10 a share and most newspapers are either losing circulation or making minimal to no gains in growing markets where gains should be a given. We're also seeing mass layoffs, shrinking sections, etc.
In other words, the wheels have come off the bus. If you're looking for a 50/50 mix of good and bad news in this environment, you're just like the handful of realtors who are trying to tell people that everything in real estate is just dandy right now.
Any new Gannett "initiative" needs to be viewed with skepticism, as they routinely fail and the company has proven time and time again that it has attention deficit disorder.
Beg for good news if you like, but this isn't the sort of environment that breeds it.
I have wondered about the claims that certain postings are from corporate and all sound the same.
ReplyDeleteToday, I posted the first question, and nothing since. So the folks who assumed that it was one person saying these things (above), are wrong. It's just true discussion.
To comment on a few barbs thrown out so far:
- Anti-Jim? Hardly. I have pretty high access in this company. But I've learned things first here on many occasions. I'm a fan.
- Talking directly to Jim? Why not? He is leading the discussion.
- Questioning Jim? Why wouldn't we? The very nature of our career has been holding those in control to a level of accountability.
Jim hosts a discussion 24/7 attended largely by journalists, and he's in charge. He has to expect we will - by our very nature - question his comments and actions.
It's what good journalists do.
Bad journalists get angry, attack and throw out unresearched and unsubstantiated reports and commentary.
Clearly there are plenty of the latter here. I just hope we've laid off more of them than we've kept.
Hey 10:32
ReplyDeleteI'm not 9:05 so don't jump to conclusions.
If I'm not mistaken, Jim promised at one time to provide old reviews. I don't recall what prompted this but he nevertheless promise. So far he hasn't followed through.
Now, I don't understand the point of your rambling post. First you address the previous poster's legitimate followup request and then you fall apart in nonsense. No one is looking for a 50/50 badnews/good news equation. It would be nice if things were a little more balanced. I for one have provided good news only to have it removed.
If the wheels are falling off as you say then why are you still around poking fun? Why aren't you on to something else?
I feel sorry for you as life must be pure misery.
Note to Arizona Republic and other papers that might follow their lead. You have been advertising "Midday headlines" on azcentral.com which I have been doing. I get news throughout the day that ends up in the paper I receive at my door the next day. The writing's not great (online or print) but I can google the stories of interest which I'll do more often as I just cancelled my subscription. Not just because I can get the news for free but also because I"M TIRED OF BUYING A PAPER THAT CONSTANTLY TELLS ME TO GET THE SAME INFORMATION YESTERDAY AND FOR FREE!
ReplyDelete11:16
ReplyDeleteI completely agree.
It's a fine line between pushing on-line readers and killing paper readers.
After a great deal of pondering and research I have come to a conclusion. Jim is a professional pessimist. He does everything noted in the following article and does it well:
ReplyDeletePillory the Professional Pessimists
5/4/2009 6:29:47 PM
by Bennett Gordon
As a rule of thumb, it’s generally easier to sound smart when criticizing something than it is when supporting it. It’s safer to stand on the sidelines and insult than it is to offer your own ideas. This immutable rule of human interaction has given rise to “professional pessimists,” a class of pundits and professionals who, according to Arthur Herman in the Wilson Quarterly, have been around since at least 2,000 BC.
The professional pessimist is able to “not only make past successes look like failure, but can present catastrophe as condign punishment for past sins.” Unfortunately for their home countries, these pessimists can convince other people to panic, or to blithely accept a bleak future, making the decline of their civilization unavoidable.
1:01 pm: Thank you for your negative, Debbie Downer of a comment about my generally sunny and optimistic nature!
ReplyDeleteWas that a "tongue in cheek" comment or were you serious. If you were serious, I suggest you do a small statistical analysis of your last 100 original threads and then do the math. Hopefully you were just joking and understand the point.
ReplyDeleteI was quite serious. when I saw this article I immediately thought about the tone of this blog and decided I had to share.
DAY 6 of my Lay-Off. BLUE-COLLAR HOME DELIVERY. No Real Job Prospects.
ReplyDeleteI am not here to be a whinner. I understand that things are bad and lay-off are necessary. I also understand that the old newspaper industry is dying and will reconfigure in a new form. I also understand that the non adaptive bureaucratic (serving the "Top") structure of Gannett has amplified its operation and stock valuation and -most importantly- EMPLOYEE MORALE problems.
I'm a little scared but I have take proactive steps over the last couple of years to prepare for bad times.
I just want to thank Mr. Dubow, Ms. Martore, the other officers and board of directors for exceeding my expectations of ineptitude.
Using my analytical skills, I decided to buy $12.50 GANNETT PUT OPTIONS last August (stock was $18.00) by November (when the stock was $8.00) my options were UP 431% in value. You guys made me 3.2 Years Pay. Thank you. I just closed on my bank foreclosed house down South and PAID CASH....all because of You. I can now afford to be un/underemployed for an extended period without being homeless.
I don't have the "Fuck Everybody Money" that you have/will have Craig; or have "Fuck You Money" where I can give up working in my late 40s; but I did make "Fucking Ayh Money." AND I learned how to use my mind & talents to make more from investments than from work.
I only wish I had held those option unitl the stock hit $2.50.....I would have made 1,400+% profit and almost match your $875,000 December Bonus Craig.
CAN LOCAL BLOGGERS REPLACE LOCAL NEWS COVERAGE?
ReplyDeleteBy Ezra Klein
The news business, we all agree, is an inefficient enterprise. But it has benevolent inefficiencies. Not every story in the paper maximizes readership and thus advertising revenue. The low-readership stories, however, aren't misfires. They're aimed at a different audience: Empowered elites. They make the political system aware of problems, or they alert the political system to the fact that other people are aware of problems*.
And that only works because newspapers are hard to ignore. The result is a startlingly inefficient from a revenues standpoint but fairly important from a civic accountability standpoint. Newspapers run popular articles and use their resulting readership to make their unpopular articles matter to the relevant constituencies. Regulators, say. Or city councilmen who wanted the paper's future endorsement. That's the thing a blogger can't do. They can get the information. But they can't make it matter. They're easier to ignore. In that way, the fear isn't that we'll stop having news. But that that news will stop forcing accountability.
I also don't understand why anyone cares about Jim's performance reviews.
ReplyDeleteI had several performance reviews done "on me" when I was with gannett. They were done by a publisher/idiot/piss-ant who was clueless.
Oddly, these so-called "performance reviews" of me were very positive, and I always got a raise. Yet they were worthless because the idiot filling out the review obviously just did a vague, general, "he's all that" review. Nothing constructive.
Despite the positive reviews, I was constantly the source of pressure, derision and abuse from the publisher.
Every day I walked into the office I was sure was going to be the day I was fired. I lived under this little squat dictator for years and finally quit in disgust. It was just a few days before I knew I was going to be fired that I walked out the door. Another career ruined.
Performance reviews, I can tell you, mean nothing in Gannett.
The performance reviews could show Jim's motivation. Also, he pledged to post them here. That's enough reason for me.
ReplyDeleteAnd please learn to spell "whining."
1:55, you hit it on the nose. Performance reviews are just a vehicle for petty, sometimes jealous managers to keep you down and remind you of your insignificance in the company. If the evaluation process really worked, why are there so many awful editors and reporters at Gannett newspapers? Every day at work is just another reminder.
ReplyDeleteAll: I will not be posting any of my performance reviews. I made that promise under duress -- when I was sleep-deprived and being threatened, while in Washington, D.C., for the annual shareholder's meeting.
ReplyDeleteI've changed my mind mostly, however, because it would invade the privacy of at least one USA Today employee. I will not do that to her.
Also, it would be misleading to post it now, because it was written before its author and those higher up knew I was keeping this blog.
My final review before taking a buyout would have been written, approved and signed in mid- to late-October 2007. By then, I'd been blogging anonymously for about a month. That's not long, but it would have almost certainly made a huge difference in the review's conclusions.
Finally, please do not ask me to post my income tax returns, medical records, or other such documents. I have been a public figure since my first byline appeared in a daily newspaper in September 1985. But I'm not a politician, so I don't feel it necessary to subject myself to that level of scrutiny. Without being asked, I've volunteered my annual income during my last year at USA Today. I've posted my stock ownership in Gannett (one share -- long), plus other financial disclosures.
Also, the notion that I'm personally obligated to take on the additional work of providing balance through more "positive'' posts is one of the oldest opposition tricks in the book: Give Hopkins lots of busy work, and he'll have less time to do more investigative stuff.
Look: I'm the only one looking into the Gannett Foundation, GCI corporate pay practices, and challenging Dubow at the annual meeting (with a handful of other stockholders). That's the hard work.
The easy work is rounding up links to good work, and posting them on Gannett Blog with a couple graphs saying why they stand out. Anyone can do that -- including Gannett's Communications Department, under outgoing Vice President Tara Connell. Indeed, that same Communications Department could still make use of the URL Gannett registered in 2006 -- months before I started publishing this site.
That URL? It is www.gannettblog.com.
Here's more on that: http://tinyurl.com/dfnpkn
I find it ironic and amusing that a Gannett employee was the author of post @5/09/2009 8:54 AM.
ReplyDelete"We come back to do our best to create some semblance of balance to some of the BS being spread around here?"
I wonder if said person shows similar concerns for Gannett's newspaper forums and story comments.
"We also show up to challenge Jim and hold him accountable. If we don't, who will? He should be"
If one is going to preach accountability, one should not post anonymously.
"Aside from off-topic comments, I rarely see a comment that isn’t controversial or inflammatory. People are talked about, rumors are spread and no one knows what is what."
Are you discussing Jim's blog on the content in Pluck?
If we use the definition about (from Wikipedia) I posit that 90% of the comments on Gannett Web sites are left by trolls. Perhaps you should be concerned with your own house. Then again, that stuff drives traffic, doesn't?
@ 5/09/2009 11:11 AM
ReplyDelete"I just hope we've laid off more of them than we've kept."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but many good journalists left Gannett before all hell broke loose.
5/09/2009 8:03 AM,
ReplyDeleteYou're way too high maintenance for Gannett blog.
It seems more like you're trying to strike up a personal relationship with Jim than stating your opinion on all things Gannett.
Have you looked up the word "egotistical" lately?
Jim Hopkins said...
ReplyDeleteAll: I will not be posting any of my performance reviews.
Praise be! I didn't think it was a good ides when it was first suggested. Even if the review is through the roof, it is none of the blog's readers' business.
All this nit picking of Jim, his qualifications, his abilities, his performance are ridiculous. This is a blog about Gannett, not about how well Jim caters to the whims of snide commentors.
xxx including Gannett's Communications Department, under outgoing Vice President Tara Connell xxx
ReplyDeleteIs this a mistake because you are on a Starbucks high, or are you dropping a hint Tara is out the door?
@ 5/09/2009 8:42 AM
ReplyDeletePlease describe the procedures for accountability and balance that are in place for Gannet management including local editors and publishers.
You may begin... now.
And remember, "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it"
5:19 pm: Corporate announced some weeks ago that Connell is to become Vice President of ContentOne.
ReplyDeleteA successor hasn't been named, however.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI find it ironic and amusing that a Gannett employee was the author of post @5/09/2009 8:54 AM.
"We come back to do our best to create some semblance of balance to some of the BS being spread around here?"
I wonder if said person shows similar concerns for Gannett's newspaper forums and story comments.
"We also show up to challenge Jim and hold him accountable. If we don't, who will? He should be"
If one is going to preach accountability, one should not post anonymously.
"Aside from off-topic comments, I rarely see a comment that isn’t controversial or inflammatory. People are talked about, rumors are spread and no one knows what is what."
Are you discussing Jim's blog on the content in Pluck?
If we use the definition about (from Wikipedia) I posit that 90% of the comments on Gannett Web sites are left by trolls. Perhaps you should be concerned with your own house. Then again, that stuff drives traffic, doesn't?
5/09/2009 4:39 PM
First off, I am a Gannett employee. Secondly, I have nothing to do with newspaper forums or story comments so that point is moot. No one on this blog uses his or her name that is an active employee, so don’t even try to go there. In fact, I even made the suggestion that we make this a name only or at the very least a registered-type blog and was laughed out of the house. Regarding all the controversial or inflammatory comments, I refer to Jim’s comments and those of others that comment anonymously.
What do you mean “concerned with my own house?” I am concerned and take care of things just fine.
I don’t see you have a point.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete@ 5/09/2009 8:42 AM
Please describe the procedures for accountability and balance that are in place for Gannet management including local editors and publishers.
You may begin... now.
And remember, "Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it"
5/09/2009 5:35 PM
Your feeble attempt to deflect won't work here buddy.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete5/09/2009 8:03 AM,
You're way too high maintenance for Gannett blog.
It seems more like you're trying to strike up a personal relationship with Jim than stating your opinion on all things Gannett.
Have you looked up the word "egotistical" lately?
By the way, there's not a thing wrong with my request. Why can't we know what was deleted and why? Personal relationship? I think not. Just tyring to hold someone accountable for the things they say and do.
5/09/2009 5:01 PM
I'm sure you have an intimate understanding of the term. If you don't like what I write, don't read it. Move along.
"Jim Hopkins said...
ReplyDeleteAll: I will not be posting any of my performance reviews. I made that promise under duress -- when I was sleep-deprived and being threatened, while in Washington, D.C., for the annual shareholder's meeting.
I've changed my mind mostly, however, because it would invade the privacy of at least one USA Today employee. I will not do that to her."
Liar, liar, pants on fire. So your boss wrote about someone else in your review? Why don't you just black those sections out like the CIA does?? Hmm??
"Gannett was on to his mental instability"
ReplyDeleteSince when can a corporation know or understand an individuals mental state?
Perhaps a single person or a small group of people might offer a guess to a person's mental state, but I find it difficult to understand how a corporation as an institution can know.
First off, is the Gannett evaluator of a performance review a psychologist or a psychiatrist? I know of no profession with advanced psychological training on the Gannett payroll evaluating each employee. Usually when I was evaluated it was by my immediate supervisor, all of whom had no skill at understanding my mental state. I usually found that they barely had the skill to understand my true talents as a journalist, sadly to say.
Who I question for mental stability are all the posters on this blog who call Jim derogatory names, or think that his sexual orientation has anything to do with Jim's methods as a journalist. These people need to be watched, for if they are in charge of Gannett, the corporation is in a lot more trouble than anything Jim is reporting.
Jim, I am not a Gannett employee, nor never have been. I have been a newspaperman for three decades. I have enjoyed reading your blog. However, tonight will be the last time I read it. I think your reversal on the posting of your evaluation as you promised is the wrong move. I wish you best, and I hope for success for Gannett, for you and for all the industry.
ReplyDelete@ 5/09/2009 7:27 PM
ReplyDelete"Secondly, I have nothing to do with newspaper forums or story comments so that point is moot."
I see. When Gannett commits the same behavior you are criticizing Jimbo for, you are down with it.
I can dig the hypocrisy and double standards.
I'm glad you are concerned with your house. How's the profits these days? Circulation numbers?
Stock price? Enjoying those unpaid furloughs? Yes, it is one fine house.
"By the way, there's not a thing wrong with my request. Why can't we know what was deleted and why? Personal relationship? I think not. Just tyring to hold someone accountable for the things they say and do."
ReplyDeleteGood idea. How come Gannett doesn't implement such a policy on their Web sites?
I believe we should start a crowdsourcing project where former Gannett employees can post their performance appraisals. That would be cool.
ReplyDeleteQuick addition to my 11:16 post. While finishing up today's paper, I come upon an article with a note below the headline saying the article was a reprint from azcentral.com. If it's a reprint from azcentral and I suspect they printed the paper around midnight, they're clearly making a point I should not be touching paper. Seems at every opportunity the Az Republic is showing better alternatives (and free ones!). I'm so happy I cancelled my subscription this morning! Now I'm curious, seems like more than 50% of the paper is advertising, will they simply eliminate 85% of the current staff to match what appears to be at best, 15% of the total ad revenue online?
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that so many seem to forget that this is Jim's blog. He can run it any damn way he desires. He can delete whatever he desires. He can offer an explanation if he wishes... or not. He can moderate comments or let them run wild. He can post as many "What I'm Doing Now" pix as he wants. He can pledge to post some personal documents and then change his mind. He is not required to offer an explanation -- unless he wants to offer an explanation. And he can investigate any Gannett misdeed or good deed as is his whim. If you don't like it here, go elsewhere. The Internet is free. Or why not offer a constructive comment. That would be positive news.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to me that many wish to make an issue out of Jim's handling of comments, his motivations, the quality of his reporting, and his performance appraisal. Doesn't the newspaper industry and Gannett have bigger problems to worry about?
ReplyDeleteJe-sus Christ!!!!
ReplyDeleteCan't we talk about something except for Jim
@5/10/2009 1:58 AM
ReplyDeleteOK, let's talk about something else. I'm sure you've been watching the demise of the other giant newspaper conglomerates besides Gannett. There's even an item in E&P that the NYT could slide into bankruptcy. And Tribune under Zell is already there. What lessons can be drawn from all this? When the next media medium rises (be it internet, mindmeld or tom-toms), what mistakes should it avoid? What can it do to be successful? Hand how can you/we make sure it will both serve the public and assure payment of your/our mortgage and retirement?