One of Gannett Blog's best-known, though never publicly identified sources, says in a comment at 2:43 p.m. ET:
1. Layoffs will be 3,000 minimum. Newspaper division President Bob Dickey's note is misleading and incorrect
2. Corporate executives are celebrating the closing of Gannett Blog.
3. There is a consultant firm working with Tara Connell to help her figure out what ContentOne is supposed to be when it grows up.
Jim observes: The figure, "3,000 minimum,'' follows MyBoss' previous, widely-quoted estimate of 4,500 cuts in the community newspapers division.
Earlier: Why the real job cut number isn't 1,400
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.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
4 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)
This post was delayed while I helped Sparky get settled after a 14-hour trip from San Francisco. Sorry about that.
ReplyDeleteWill MY BOSS post on Gannettoid?
ReplyDeleteDear My Boss, Jim and especially Sparky,
ReplyDeleteThank you for everything you all have done for Gannett employees and their families.
My Boss, you are my hero for having the stones -- big, watermelon-sized steel ones -- to keep folks in the loop.
Jim, thank you ... a thousand times thank you ... for giving us this blog in the first place (and the $$ I sent was definitely well-spent).
Sparky, thank you, thank you, and thank you again for sharing Jim with us. May you both be blessed with happiness and peace.
Much love from a straight woman who knows a real man is defined by how he treats others, and by that alone.
"Never identified publicly"? Does that mean you know who it is and it's someone trustworthy? Or are you just being cagey?
ReplyDelete