Saturday, July 04, 2009

Farewell | Final (snarky!) thanks

Tens of thousands of readers made Gannett Blog possible. In an occasional series, I'm singling out a few whose help was above and beyond the call. Not all the contributors were willing participants, of course! So, without further adieu, come on down:


OMG!!! Alleged free-speech advocate questions whether First Amendment applies to "bad bloggers" (ahem) -- and USA Today actually publishes it! And Gannett pays him $1,923 for the privilege -- again! Strong-arms transfer of $650 million in Gannett Foundation money to Freedom Forum, then gives $65,700 to third wife's Florida adoption agency! Endlessly showcases six "chosen children" while ignoring out-of-wedlock daughter!

But wait, there's more! Surrounds self with cronies! Gets contracts paying $200,000 a year for life, while Gannett lays off thousands! Kept desk on platform to intimidate office visitors! In short (hah!), no one's offered more raw material than the suntanned, vertically challenged, 85-year-old retired multimillionaire in Cocoa Beach, Fla. Enjoy the weather where you're headed, man! The tobacco lobbyists already there say the temps are toasty!

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.

6 comments:

  1. From Al's column:

    "Some politicians, prime victims of bad bloggers, think the First Amendment protection of a free press should not apply to bloggers and have threatened laws to try to do something about it.

    They're wrong."

    The "They're wrong" part is Al's statement.

    I don't think you can fairly say he's questioning whether bloggers should get First Amendment protection. He's clearly saying they should.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Howard!

    Nice to see you back.

    I disagree.

    1. The headline says, "Should bad bloggers have press freedom?" That's Al talking, because USAT doesn't fart without checking in with the man.

    2. The column is replete with references to "bad" bloggers, revealing his real bias. .

    3. He references people who "abuse" the First Amendment.

    And, yes, I'm sensitive about this; his column is payback for an ugly confrontation we had less than two weeks before, at Gannett headquarters. This hit piece, paid for by Gannett, would be such an abuse -- except I don't believe that's possible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jim:

    It is apparent from all your previous writings that you have very fundamental and visceral hatred of AHN. What is behind this hatred prior to the meeting?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't hate Neuharth. As a major Gannett investor, I object to his bleeding GCI dry.

    And based on your comment, you haven't read a word I've written.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Make up your mind.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Al planted the seeds for the future we now live.

    He weeded out the top talent to make sure no one challenged Al.

    When the storm struck, there wasn't any depth to upper management to have a clue what to do.

    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.