An independent journal about the Gannett Co. and the news industry's digital transition
Good Question. Does Gannett have the answer? Um, no.
Didn't you know that many of the first movements of historical events started on Gannett's moms sites?
Jim: Don't confuse the tool with the craftsman who wields it. We don't credit Blogger with creating Gannett Blog.
hey dopey Jim....Gannett runs news websites...not primarily social networking sites....facebook is social networking....different missions! different purposes!
hey dopey 10:58 p.m.....I think relevancy is the issue here.Gannett newspapers (I'm most familiar with the Journal News in my area) are no longer relevant to people in the community. They're wafer-thin and without substance on a daily basis.You can see the reporters are trying, but there are a lot fewer names now than there were a couple of years ago. Gannett can only squeeze so much blood from the rock!Lowered quality coupled with a higher price equals cancelled subscriptions.And the Web site? Not much need to go there. Just more of nothing.Check Media Bistro today for a story about magazines out-twittering the newspapers by substantial margins. It's interesting and goes against the Gannett grain.Gannett piles more work on fewer people. It does not want to spend money on what counts: quality news coverage. And that spells the end of the community newspapers.
"Check Media Bistro today for a story about magazines out-twittering the newspapers by substantial margins. It's interesting and goes against the Gannett grain."Yes, that's an indication of success. You are immensely stupid for writing that.
Why is that so immensely stupid, 11:58 a.m.? I just looked at the story and the idea is that Gannett puts forth new "initiatives" without backing them up with people and capital.That's not true, according to the story, about publications including "Time."And, at the Journal News in Westchester the management made a huge thing about the need for everyone to Twitter at least several times a day.Of course, the managers never Twittered, and never bothered to discuss Twittering or other social media (and its impact on the mainstream press) with the rank and file.Everyone was just told one day to Twitter, Twitter, Twitter!
Yeah, 11:58 a.m., did you even bother to read the media bistro story?
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 in a reader