Sunday, May 24, 2009

Sunday | May 24 | 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.)

27 comments:

  1. It has become obvious to me: this isn't the Ganett blog after all - it is the editorial blog. Thats why business decisions aren't understood except for the few money reporters that took the time to study business as well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Enough of the rings issue.

    Whether the individuals deserved them in these tough times is far too debatable.

    What does seem true is the company just completely overlooked the PR disaster they created. The home office does look insensitive on this.

    Should they have handed them out? It's Gannett tradition so why not.

    Could they have done it in a more reserved way, with more discretion toward the tensions not only in Gannett newsrooms but throughout the industry where former GCI employees see them as symbols of Babylon gone wild? Absolutely.

    Doesn't the company have a PR department?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Furlough's Rule & Non-Ring Winners DROOL !!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous said...
    Furlough's Rule & Non-Ring Winners DROOL !!!!!

    5/24/2009 8:34 AM

    Amen to the last part. Envious losers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jim said...
    Saying goodbye to people we love is one of the hardest parts of starting any new journey.

    5/24/2009 9:08 AM


    Anonymous said...
    Hey, it looks like Jim is going to focus his energies on his new moneymaker. The Gannett Blog must be getting a furlough. No point in doing this if:

    a. money is coming in for the other "thing"
    b. no money is coming in for this thing
    c. the blogger therapy suggested by Jim's shrink was a success and Jim was able to work out his anger management issues
    d. there is getting to be too many people commenting that actually like their jobs and are successful
    e. Jim is just getting bored

    Stay tuned for other big changes to be announced in the coming weeks.

    By the way, this announcement dropped during a slow news day with minimal viewers.

    5/24/2009 9:11 AM

    ReplyDelete
  6. oh, oh. No comment monitoring by the blog owner. Time to cut lose and say what you really think with minimal intervention and censorship.

    ReplyDelete
  7. My blog will be out
    Tomorrow
    Bet your bottom dollar
    That tomorrow
    There'll be sun (in Ibiza)!

    Just thinkin' about
    Ibiza
    Clears away the Gannett blog,
    And the sorrow
    'Til there's none!

    When I'm stuck with a day
    That's gay,
    And lonely,
    I just stick out my chin
    And Grin,
    And Say,
    Ibiza!

    My therapist said:
    “Ibiza”
    Jim, ya gotta hang on
    'Til Ibiza
    Come what may
    Ibiza! Ibiza!
    I love ya Ibiza!
    You're only
    A blog
    A way!

    ReplyDelete
  8. USA TODAY ... the "nation's newspaper?" Ha! What nation are we talking about? The nation that is hanging out in airports or force fed the thing at their hotels? I will take the NYT, particularly online, over the increasingly shallow USA TODAY.

    USA TODAY ... the "graphics newspaper?" Yea, right! Besides the witless Snapshots and a spattering of boring charts, I don't see much visual journalism left in this rag.

    USA TODAY ... the "flagship?" Yea, of a sinking fleet.

    USA TODAY should be studied by universities. It's the perfect example of how not to manage a publication. It newsroom leaders have become increasingly weaker. The publisher's office now operates like every other Gannett paper. And the convergence plan was about as poorly executed as a plan can be.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Excellent discussion the last two days about, pardon this, Ring-Gate. I find a parallel over in Britain right now where the self-aggrandizement by members of Parliament is in full scandal mode. Gannett's payment of bling and cash to its managers isn't at all excessive, insofar as the recipients are truly deserving (and I personally know of a few who aren't). It's just the timing that's atrocious, much like the revelation of bonuses paid to Merrill Lynch execs on the eve of the company's acquisition by Bank of America. The rings/bonuses should have been suspended in light of the furlough/pay cuts/pension freezes.

    But many of us know that the executive, shall we say privileged-class entitlements, go beyond the occasional meting out of jewelry. It is a common practice for some managers to receive mileage reimbursement for commuting to and from work in their gas guzzlers. It is a common practice for some managers to be reimbursed for sundry purchases and meals falsely included in expense reports. It would be very illuminating if someone discarded from one of the consolidated finance departments would step forward with more facts on this point. If the company is serious about cutting costs, it needs to do away with these practices.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hear, hear, 9:58!

    ReplyDelete
  11. 9:58, you're comparing Gannett's ring program that pays about $500 to Wall St. Bonuses? Come on. Employees are recognized locally all the time, what's wrong with recognition for department heads? As far as the timing, this is about the time they do it each year.

    As far as people padding expense reports goes...anyone who does that should be reprimanded and/or fired. If you have proof you should report it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If nothing else, this blog explained a lot for me about being a Gannettoid: Why the feeling of dread, the puzzlement over reviews that made little sense, the us-them attitude of management or sometimes the master-slave setup (until the Feds said no more uncompensated hours), the futility of trying to explain arbitrary decisions from the top. It was an interesting ride and I think I did serve my readers well despite the nonsense. So thanks Jim and all the posters who maybe for once got a clearer picture of Gannett through this blog.I made it out alive but never understood large parts of the experience until GannettBlog came along.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 12:17 said:

    "9:58, you're comparing Gannett's ring program that pays about $500 to Wall St. Bonuses? Come on. Employees are recognized locally all the time, what's wrong with recognition for department heads? As far as the timing, this is about the time they do it each year."

    At The Journal News in Westchester, we used to have an internal award program for editorial called Mighty Pen. About $1,300 was given out each month to reporters, photographers, copy editors, etc., who got a $100 check for their work in various categories like breaking news, etc.

    They disbanded that several years ago, including an annual award that came with a heftier reward.

    Since then, the editor from time to time has given out $20 Target or Barnes & Noble gift cards. I've gotten a couple in the last two years. None recently.

    But there is no formal recognition program locally in editorial at least. Maybe salespeople can comment on whether they get rewards.

    The only "reward" now is a mention in a weekly newsletter from the publisher, but that usually is geared toward advertising achievements.

    I'd be curious how many papers still have formal local award procedures.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If you want to see how cutbacks are hurting coverage at small papers, Gannett and otherwise, take this example from the Gannett-owned Sheboygan (Wis.) Press:

    This story was posted on their home page this morning, about a body found in a van in Lake Michigan offshore from a popular park and recreation area: http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20090524/SHE0101/905240401/1973

    Note the use of AP attribution throughout.

    Understandable, maybe, if the incident took place in an outlying area. But if you go to Google Maps and type in the address of the incident - 600 Broughton Drive - and the address of the paper - 632 Center Avenue - you'll find the two are 0.4 miles apart.Relying on AP to cover a high-visibility, high-interest public safety story less than a half-mile from the office... I guess I'm mildly impressed they bothered to attribute it to AP, but all in all that's just sad.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sheboygan Press article link here:
    http://www.sheboyganpress.com/
    article/20090524/SHE0101/
    905240401/1973

    ReplyDelete
  16. The loss of this blog means one less online sideshow to visit.

    I don't begrudge Jim moving on, but I am bothered by his lack of commitment. And if a therapist us involved in his decision to drop or scale this back, then that's additional proof that simply declaring you're a news outlet isn't quite that simple.

    Smells like failure to me. He started with bad intentions, lost control of it, then went paranoid and lost his way. Good riddance to not a blog but a blot on the record of a guy who maybe was a good journalist once upon a deadline.

    Sure can't prove it by what transpired here. Immature and ugly, unsubstantiated and out of control. Let it be seen as the phony thing it really was.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 4:08 pm: Thanks for your input, Mr. Dubow.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I have to agree with 4:08. This blog was a disgrace, at the level of those insert-company-name-here sucks websites where people simply dump on the company, true or not.

    What 4:08 has especially right is that Hopkins was never in charge here. And he stretched credibility to make sure he never pissed off his crazy base.

    Think about it. A trained journalist reduced to hiring a bodyguard! I'd see a therapist, too.

    Whatever community value this blog had in revealing the scope of layoffs was far outweighed by the bad information, hate and often moronic content, a disgrace whether this blog was pro or anti Gannett. I'm ashamed to have worked with Hopkins who would still be at USA TODAY if he hadn't voluntarily taken his lucrative buyout. His deal was more outrageous than any ring a Gannett manager got.

    What a fraud. The man of the people vacationing with the upscale crowd.

    Nothing this blog stands for has been helped by it's existence and if anything the blog has only empowered the corporation. All because Hopkins forgot he was a journalist, tried to become a hero and then went mental when required to prove his points.

    If his new blog does well he'll be the first to be playing golf with the bigshots and smiling about it. "Your shot, Mr. Dickey." Bah.

    ReplyDelete
  19. To 5:27,

    I think you comments are spot on.

    To add a little, Jim received 52 weeks of compensation plus medical benefits. I have more time than he does with the company yet I would receive 26 weeks at the most if I were layed off, which is not voluntary. And then to be able to goof off for a year doing whatever he wanted.

    Gannett essentially paid Jim to start this blog. And perhaps that was Gannett's intention all along. It wouldn't surprise me if Gannett was nehind things just so they would have a way to influence thinking. It's been used by the military for years - propoganda. Who knows who is posting what with this anonymous thing. At the very least we should have at least had to register and used some kind of name so we could see who was posting over and over again.

    I agree heartily with your final word, 5:27: Bah!

    ReplyDelete
  20. 6:18 pm: Actually, it was 40 weeks. And I earned every penny of it. Bah to you!

    ReplyDelete
  21. I have now confirmed with Mayron Maslowsky that Brett Wilson and Ed Cassidy in USA Today advertising spent more than $200,000 throwing parties and entertaining clients in Brazil for some travel summit -- all for an advertising category that has all but dired up for USA Today. Shame on them.

    ReplyDelete
  22. That's right, you only logged 20 years. Still 14 weeks more than anyone else will ever get and it was still squandered on a free and easy lifestyle. there was no sweat and toil in this blog, that's for sure.

    And you are welcome for using my Ibiza song parady.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Right on 6:50! Most people immediately begin searching for a new job when laid off or when they take a buy out. Because they have to. Leaving a job of 20 years with no prospects would freak most people out but Jim decided to vacation for a year?

    Not sure what Jimbo was up to. Must have had someone taking care of him and didn't need to look for a job. I wonder if he met Sparky in Ibiza.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "If you don't have anything nice to say, come sit by me"

    ReplyDelete
  25. 4:08, you say you worked with Jim at USA Today and you call him a fraud. Yet you do it anonymously.

    Who's the fraud?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Can't anyone be happy for whatever they got out of this blog.
    As they point out in the Broadway show "Chicago,"
    "Nothing stays."

    Jim, if you're finding a way to keep this blog going while still doing your new thing, great.

    If you're moving on, best wishes to you on your future endeavors.

    While we may not have the right to keep our jobs, we pretty much have the right to choose how we want to live.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hey if Jim is moving on doesn't mean someone else can't take up the crusade.

    It's not like Gannett is going anywhere.

    Gannett hasn't gone anywhere in years. Wink.

    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.