Wednesday, March 23, 2011

March 21-27 | Your News & Comments: Part 3

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.)


  1. For Part 2 of this comment thread, please go here.

  2. 12:48, you convey a very human side to the perspective of the head-count reducers and that's appreciated, really. But here lies the most glaring part about Corp America in what you essentially confess to here:

    "Indeed, we are cutting positions not people. In fact, the people making the decisions about which POSITIONS to cut don't even know the PEOPLE in them. We have to take this approach ..."

    No, in fact, you do NOT have to take this approach. In fact, that's precisely where GCI has utterly failed here. It's bad business when you don't even know the value of the people you cut, when you break it all down to positions.

    In my department, 2/3rds lost jobs based purely upon the 'positions eliminated' theory. What did that mean? It mean the high producers/value-adders went right out the door. The few remaining included people who needed an entire day and an army of colleagues to 'consult' before they could even make the most basic of productivity-related decisions.

    The 'it's the position, not the people' theory completely dismisses the concept of human assets. Clearly, all human assets are not created equally, as anyone who's worked in an office for a day realizes. Smart, forward thinking organizations today who are part of the 'knowledge worker' generation realize this. GCI, of course, would never, ever be characterized as a smart, forward-thinking organization. So it adopts failed models like the 'position elimination' one, as your org obviously has.

  3. 7:29 here: Sorry for some sloppy grammar in my post. (I realize there are some copy editors here who occasionally take posters to task on this point.) It's early. But you get the drift of my message here ...

  4. ouch. scathing review of NYT pricing for digital paywall.

  5. This is an example of the hard-hitting news we get in our local Gannett rag.
    Cat rescued after seven days in tree|topnews|text|Frontpage


  6. I hope gci, craiggy and the new digital and marketing czars can kick out the deadwood sales reps and bring some fresh revenue in. I also hope they can convince the powers that be that the quality of the product must improve, too.
    3/23/2011 12:40 AM

    To 12:40 AM - it doesn't matter if deadwood sales rep stay or go... GCI has a product that cannot be sold to NEW advertisers and current and old advertisers are constantly reducing their advertising dollars with GCI, it still works to some degree for them, but less and less over days, weeks and months. You will start seeing a dramatic fall off of revenue over the near term. To put it this way, what if you had the best sales force imaginable and they were told to sell your horse buggies and its 2011, do you think they would sell any......and that is GCI in a nutshell

  7. 7:29 -- Excellent post. I might also note that this approach to cutting (the one Gannett clearly uses) is obvious to the workforce and ends up resulting in poorer work from the employees who remain ... even if they were once extremely dedicated.

    I'm a perfect example. I used to work countless "free" hours for the company because I loved my job. When, however, I saw the company engage in round after round of layoffs, noticing that there was no favoritism toward the employees who were more knowledgable, worked harder, etc., I stopped.

    I still do my job, but I'm in and out in 40 hours without giving them a dime of extra effort. I'm no longer concerned about the future of the company or its overall reputation because I know it's not concerned about me. When I get a better offer or they decide to lay me off, I'll leave and that will be that. All of my extra energy goes into time with my family and training for other opportunities. Arguably, I owe Gannett a debt of gratitude because this is probably the approach I should have always taken.

    Interestingly, this corporate mentality is one reason you often see companies that had great customer service become more poorly run when they expand. They are bigger, yes, but management has lost touch with its employees and, thus, it's quality control.

    Thing is, by cutting positions and not PEOPLE, the company sent the message to me that my efforts just didn't matter and that I could work very hard or (if I'd had less pride in my work) even skate. My level of commitment clearly didn't matter. And I'm not the only one who sees this. Many of my colleagues have the same exact attitude that I do. And they, too, were extremely hard workers who used to think nothing of uncharged overtime.

    7:29 is right. Companies do not have to use this approach. That's what local managers are for. The bigwigs making cuts should know their managers. If they don't like or trust those managers, the managers should go first. If they do like and trust those managers, then the manager's opinions of his/her employees should be weighted highly when making decisions on who to lay off. It's the only way a company can truly progress.

    Cutting by position alone is one of the most foolish things a company can do. So, if the person who originally started this conversation (a good one, thanks) still has the analytical skills of a reporter, he/she may want to think this over and talk to other management about it. Your company isn't making the right moves to assure a stronger future for all employees. It's eroding the foundation it was built upon by tossing out load-bearing beams along with those that could reasonably be discarded.

  8. 7:29 & 7:43
    I agree and your points are well said.
    At our paper corporate didn't tell us what positions to eliminate. They gave us a number to hit and the areas to be affected. Then it was up to the directors over those areas to eliminate active positions or empty positions to hit the numbers.
    Obviously with centralizations this may be taken out of local control for us.

  9. My apologies if Gannett Blog has been a tad boring the last couple days; this has been a S-L-O-W news cycle that I hope will end soon.

  10. Gannett's marketing campaign seems designed to give GCI leaders the impression that all is well in their empire.
    Had GCI instead spent that money on a survey of its customers, it would have learned something of much greater value.
    Customers, those who read and use Gannett products, would tell GCI what it doesn't want to hear: Gannett service is bad and getting worse.
    In all the "touch points" between customer and Gannett, the level of professionalism has declined precipitously. Thorough, timely service is simply not there, lost to badly planned layoffs, faulty equipment and various cost-cutting steps that failed to consider the perspective of the customer.
    Imagine how print advertisers react to the "all within reach" mantra now that their ads are being produced in faraway cities. Ditto for copy editing, design and circulation call-in centers.
    Perhaps someone could do a service check on Gannett outlets on behalf of GCI stockholders. See if "all within reach" becomes "difficult, if not impossible to reach."

  11. The elimination of "positions, not people", I believe, also protects the company from wrongful firing suits. You can be absolutely certain that everything they have done is strictly legal, even if it's morally bankrupt.
    Ideally, the company would identify its weaker links and figure out how to force them out, or just dismiss them. The remaining people, who presumably are stronger workers overall could be moved around to fill in and support the basic infrastructure. They can't do this, however, because all of the jobs have become so compartmentalized, and the review process is essentially corrupt also.
    By eliminating positions (as well as the people associated with those jobs), Gannett also shows it is not trying to position itself for eventual recovery. How many times, in your offices, has a question come up and no one knows the answer because So-and-So used to take care of it and that person is now gone?
    Maybe top management HAS given up and is simply (as someone else commented) playing a shell game until everything is gone.

  12. Here is a well-written piece by a sharp, innovator

  13. Yes, I agree with all or most sentiments posted this morning on 'positions vs. people.' Very perceptive and clear-thinking comments, folks. Why on earth are you applying these tools for an org like GCI?

    One remark about GCI not being connected to its managers/employees ... I will add, GCI also clearly not connected to an even more important constituent: the customers

    The new branding campaign is one of a long line of examples. Dubow and Co. totally tone deaf to what customers want on this.

    So yes, eliminating positions not people is clearly part of a long exit strategy for the company overall, one that's the least 'legally messy' for GCI lawyer suits to deal with. (And believe me, I worked in the CP for more than a decade. Those lawyer suits absolutely rule the company with iron fists.)

    And by the time the last light is turned off for good, what will it matter to those who destroyed the company? They'll have already been personally rewarded over many, many years for their corporate mismanagement, enabled by their cronies on the board of directors.

  14. Does the Des Moines Register still pay for ad reps to park downtown?

  15. furloughed fury3/23/2011 12:11 PM

    As the 1st Q furloughs wind down (two weeks of fun left kids!), how long will it take Craig and the other greed bags to announce Q2 furloughs. How are they going to spin this in Craig's self serving "Look I'm sympathizing with you" letter to employees.
    "Despite receiving a $1.5 million bonus, I'll be taking a weeks pay cut too, which i firmly expect to be made up with next years seven figure bonus. Enjoy eating dog food, Craig.
    P.S. earn extra cash by becoming to troll to post on the Gannett blog. See your local fifth column site recruiter, code word is Judas"

  16. Eliminating positions not people must be the policy that has kept our company's highest officers in a job.... So don't expect that to change anytime soon!

  17. 12:48 here. Thanks for the thoughtful responses to my post. It's good to have these honest and respectful conversations.

    To begin, choosing people over positions when engaging in an RIF opens the company up to lawsuits, the likes of which people on this very blog who complain about the "positions over people" mentality are also the same ones crying for a class-action lawsuit against GCI for age discrimination. In addition, if the company no longer has the need for particular service, than it must reduce that position, no matter the quality of the individual in that position or the lack of ability of people in other positions that are still needed to operate the company. No, using people over position to engage in a RIF is about the worst management decision a company, from the top-down, can make.

    There are no easy answers when reduced revenue forces a company to pick the best worst-case scenario. Reducing jobs isn't easy, it isn't fun, and it doesn't make the product, no matter the industry, more competitive (in most circumstances). But, any good manager would agree that a position over people model is more advantageous, even though it does have negative consequences, as a people over position model, which would also have negative consequences.

    As for the poster who said his extra effort doesn't matter under the position over people mentality, I would say that is a short-sided way of looking at it. If your position is not required (like pressman at presses that were shut down) then, yes, you are correct. But, when a company has 10 people doing the same job and it only needs 8 people to do that job moving forward (a positions over people decision) than you can bet your bottom dollar your extra effort will be considered when management is determining which 2 people should be cut.

  18. Gannett never makes the Most Admired Companies or Best Places to Work For lists. It isn't cited in books or treatises about management excellence or innovation. Wall Street values it at one-fifth to one-sixth what it did in 1984. The bond ratings companies lump Gannett in with the junk.

    Throw in the misdirected cleaving of valuable employees (versus the expendables), the slap-in-the-face furloughs, the undeserved executive bonuses, the miserly mileage reimbursements, the unpaid overtime, the ridiculous pronouncements from the gods in the Crystal Palace, the new what-did-you-do-every-minute timesheets and the continuing presence of managers who would never cut it at a good company, and you've got ample reason to move on to an employer who will appreciate your skills, your dedication and other contributions. Gannett will love you for leaving without incurring severance pay and unemployment costs, but you will be better off in the long run.

  19. The first furlough was a shock, but it was doable. The following furloughs were tougher because of smaller staffs - more layoffs. The latest was just insulting. And if we do, indeed, see one in 2Q, it will be unbearable. Particularly on the copy and page design desks, which are preparing for the transition to the Design Studios. Many Gannett copy editors/page designers are seeking new jobs, and already, employees have started to jump ship since the Design Studios were announced. In most cases, these now-temporary positions are not getting filled. Not enough people are left to get the job done the right way (or barely at all). The attrition is only going to get worse as the Design Studio deadlines approach. Add more furloughs, and you're guaranteed a disaster.

  20. At my mid-sized Gannett paper, the people on the copy desk are openly hoping for a 2Q furlough.

    As at all other properties, they are cut to the bone with open positions going unfilled in preparation for the Design Studios, and with the 1Q furloughs, everyone put off their vacation until 2Q and beyond. Even with that concession, they all got more than enough OT shifts to make up for the lost furlough money. One member of the desk worked a dozen days of OT. At time-and-a-half, that's nearly 4 weeks of extra pay. So he got a net of 104 hours of extra pay and an extra week off.

    Once we get to the 2Q and people are on vacation fairly regularly, if they add in furloughs, I can't imagine how much OT they are going to have to pay the desk people.

  21. OT isn't being handed out like candy at all mid-size papers. That defeats the point of furloughs. Instead, standards are being lowered as people do a lot more work. And even if more OT were available, nobody I know would jump at the chance to work 6-day weeks in such a low-morale environment.

  22. A very long and in-depth look at USAT from the AP -- just saw it on Yahoo News.

  23. Regarding Mansfield, poster 8:14 a.m. -

    Cat stuck in a tree? Ha! Well, for this Ohio Gannett paper, that IS the best they can come up with. Their circulation has plunged in recent years, like all those poorly run Ohio dailies...

    Quality is not their strong suit.

  24. 12:23pm: What can be added to your comments is the fact that GCI is NEVER listed/mentioned as a donor or contributor to any cause, organization, or event (e.g., hospital, marathon, charitable campaign, festival) in the Washington, DC area, home of GCI headquarters. Those actions speak louder than words.

  25. 12:48/12:19...This statement "But, when a company has 10 people doing the same job and it only needs 8 people to do that job moving forward (a positions over people decision) than you can bet your bottom dollar your extra effort will be considered when management is determining which 2 people should be cut." contradicts your entire argument and makes the point everyone else is making against yours. Make up your mind about cuts- effort, talent and dedication either matter or they don't. You can't have it both ways.

  26. Hope to get breakdown of USATODAY newsroom staff and structure by name and department. If not name, then would like numbers of each job title.

  27. has full version of AP's story on Hunke's USA TODAY turnaround. Highlights:
    One analysts says strategy is "throw enough stuff against the wall, maybe some will stick;" core strategy comes mainly from Rudd Davis; staffing is down to 1,400 vs 1,800 in 2005; newsroom now at 380; William Dean Singleton says other publishers will follow Hunke's lede -- if he's successful.

  28. This says it all from Salon's story on Hunke
    "Hunke says USA Today still squeezed out a profit last year because of the cost cutting. He wouldn't provide specifics"

  29. On the AP story: What lead? Ok, I get it that Hunke says "You have to take some big steps and you have to take some risks," but what big steps has USA Today taken? Redesigning the Web page? Changing the color of the blue in the masthead? Adding marketing execs? It's all a whole load of talk, and no action. Nothing has changed, except the staff has contracted.

  30. Do the online story chats still get monitored from afar? This comment has been up on a state site since early this morning, and it's racist. The story is about a city council voting to allow raising chickens in the city.

    "what culture and who's idea whas this to push for farm animals with in the city limits . we have enough animals that move from milwaukee and burden our city with crime ."

    The "what culture" reference is probably regarding the Hmong culture, and the "animals that move from Milwaukee" is referring to blacks.

    What a shame that this comment has not been pulled down.

  31. 12:48/12:19 here. To the commenter at 2:21, I will say life is not black and white. You can have it both ways if you follow the logic from start to finish, rather than pick it up in the middle of the story as you did to make your point.

    If you have 10 people doing a job that the company only needs a 8 (or can afford to have 8) doing, then that decision is following a Position over People RIF model. But, if that positions over people process dictates that only 20 percent of a given position/title/duty etc. needs to be cut, then, good managers take other factors into consideration when choosing which two people out of the 10 doing the job, are cut. That is entirely a People decision. But, it's a people decision that followed a POSITION over PEOPLE model and process.

    You can have it both ways.

  32. @4:10: you're correct. it's keeping me employed.

  33. I'd just like to say to all the editorial people who like to bitch about how sales reps are useless. Well.. some are. Granted. But most aren't.

    You have no idea how we get dicked over, demoralized, dumped on, and generally treated like shit.

    I dare just one of you to even attempt to do what we do for one week. You'd cry....... Even more than you usually do.

  34. If the product was any good you wouldn't need sales reps.... just check with Google. The business would come knocking at your door and you would just need an administrative staff to handle the work flow. Think About Gannett

  35. So, umm, anyone heard if there will be second-quarter furloughs?

  36. Will the Journal News once again be exempt from 2nd quarter furloughs?

  37. 6:27 you are so wrong. In a media world with over 10,000 choices for advertisers to invest their money, sales is more important than ever.
    Yes the product needs to be good but your ignorance of the media choices available to advertisers is baffling. Advertisers rely on media reps more than ever.

  38. Why is everyone so worried about furloughs? A whole week without phone calls or email. A whole week without the misery that is my job. Totally worth not getting paid for.


  39. 2:15 you are just ignorant. Gannett contributes huge dollars to the communities where the sites are located. Schools, shelters, childrens programs. Educate yourself for gosh sakes

  40. 7:05 p.m. Huge dollars? Are you kidding me? I know exactly how much Gannett has contributed to my community for each of the last ten years. Your perspective is laughable. You are clearly the one who needs to educate yourself across the board. Perhaps, the company contributes "huge dollars" in your community, but that is not the rule across all papers in all communities.

  41. 6:27 you are so wrong. In a media world with over 10,000 choices for advertisers to invest their money, sales is more important than ever.
    Yes the product needs to be good but your ignorance of the media choices available to advertisers is baffling. Advertisers rely on media reps more than ever.
    3/23/2011 6:43 PM

    Ummm... just wondering if you have heard of Google largest internet advertising company in existence and have over $29 Billion in revenue and oh ya... Don't employ a single sales rep. 6:43 PM you obviously have your head in the sand.

  42. I'm all about some furloughs. I just wish they'd make it official so I can make my plans!

  43. Gannett is all smoke and mirrors when it comes to donating's employee donations and then Gannett says they match to a certain amount. However, what the match really is left over employee donations from the prior year carried over. Half is always held back, every year. I they said they raised $1 million dollars they really raised $2 million total all from employees. I have seen the books, their accounting is one for the record books. Remember ENRON, GCI is a small version of them.

  44. Are we now referring to our readers as "consumers?" That was on the G A N N E T T mission statement that's now plastered on nearly every wall in the building.

  45. Hey with little knowledge of the media google has more freeking sales reps than any media company out there. Showing more of your ignorance. Do not speak anymore you are making a fool of yourself. Maybe you have heard of Tim Armstong, CEO of AOL. He used to run Google ad sales and had a HUGE (thousands) staff of reps.

  46. Can you post the mission statement?

  47. The Journal News was not exempt from first-quarter furloughs. I just got back from mine.

  48. In this community ,Gannett donates zero.
    When the previous family ownership went away,
    so did all of his contributions to the community.
    Gannett just takes and takes and gives NOTHING
    back !Even the food bank matching funds from individuals went away.They are RUTHLESS!

  49. From Gannett's website:

    Our Mission
    To enrich lives by informing and inspiring consumers, by providing the ease and accessibility to connect them with their communities of interest, and by being a catalyst for the conversations that are making a difference every day.

    To help clients succeed through our unparalleled local-to-international portfolio of trusted brands, our ability to provide integrated marketing solutions, and our insight into consumer behavior.

    To lead the transformation of the media and marketing solutions industries.


    For some reason we also have a vision statement:

    Our Vision
    To be the trusted, leading media and marketing solutions company at the forefront of a new era in human engagement.

  50. Has to be said again: There are a lot of stupid people who post here.

    The problem isn't that people here were dropped by Gannett. It's that they were hired to begin with. How? What skills did they bring? There aren't any on display at this board.

  51. If you are a Gannett property then you have Gannett Foundation grants, funded by the Gannett company. What is your site? The information is available.

  52. 7:38 here us a simple question, what us the name if your site? The information is readily available. Calling your bluff my friend

  53. Hey with little knowledge of the media google has more freeking sales reps than any media company out there. Showing more of your ignorance. Do not speak anymore you are making a fool of yourself. Maybe you have heard of Tim Armstong, CEO of AOL. He used to run Google ad sales and had a HUGE (thousands) staff of reps.
    3/23/2011 8:35 PM

    You are way ignorant there is a difference between an advertising department and a staff of "sales reps" Google has zero of those. Get your facts straight before you start speaking, your ignorance speaks volumes.

  54. 10:03 you are soooooo wrong. Obviously not someone in the advertising business. Tim Armstong, head of Google ad sales ran a sales division of over 2000 reps wprldwide where they called on top advertisers and agencies. I'm no longer going to argue with someone who is obviously NOT in the ad business. Go to bed now and dream up some other false BS to waste your time posting here. Go argue about something you have knowledge about. I'm not talking about stupid little small business ads on google. I'm talking about REAL money ...national advertisers.

  55. Actually, the sales reps in my market are very good. Wish our newsroom could keep up.

  56. 10:03 you are soooooo wrong. Obviously not someone in the advertising business. Tim Armstong, head of Google ad sales ran a sales division of over 2000 reps wprldwide where they called on top advertisers and agencies. I'm no longer going to argue with someone who is obviously NOT in the ad business. Go to bed now and dream up some other false BS to waste your time posting here. Go argue about something you have knowledge about. I'm not talking about stupid little small business ads on google. I'm talking about REAL money ...national advertisers.
    3/23/2011 10:11 PM

    You are a very confused person, I feel sorry for you.

  57. 9:37 The Newseum is a charity, and it is undeniable that Gannett has given it a lot.

  58. 9:37 The Newseum is a charity, and it is undeniable that Gannett has given it a lot.
    3/23/2011 10:56 PM

    Umm... it is not a charity.... but a well sheltered tax haven for corporate profits that could be siphoned back into the GCI coffers if necessary... a charity it is not.

  59. 4:10 -- I appreciate your well spoken replies on this issue, but you continue to contradict yourself. In your initial post, you said you were in management and that your management team cuts employees that it doesn't even know. Now, you're saying that in some cases you not only know the employees but have first-hand knowledge of their work ethics.

    Whether you realize it or not, you are engaging in classic management doublespeak. Sort of like this.

    Boss: We are cutting positions, but it's not personal. In some cases we don't even know the personal circumstances of the employees we are going to cut. We are merely cutting positions, not people.

    Employee: Wait a minute. That means all the extra hours I've put in were for naught, and there's no reason for me to continue to work so hard for you.

    Boss: Don't be silly. You're a valued member of our company. We know exactly what we do and we'll take that into account.

    Employee: But you just said that these decisions aren't personal and that you look at positions, not people.

    Boss: Well, in most cases that's true, but in your case it's not.

    Employee: So, if I continue to work extra hours without pay, you won't fire me?

    Boss: It's not that simple, but we'll certainly take all your hard work into consideration.

    There may be rare occasions where a company that fires people based on a "Position First" attitude preserve a particularly good employee but, as you mentioned, the first consideration is going to be savings and the second is going to be potential lawsuits.

    That means when the company gets to keep 8 out of 10 employees it is going to look at the salary, race, gender, etc. Why? Because if they fire the only minority woman on the team or the only guy who is 50+ they might get caught up in a lawsuit. Therefore, in the environment you described, the likelihood of someone keeping his/her job with work ethic alone is extremely unlikely. Management (including you, apparently) doesn't want employees to know this, but it is true without question.

    I'm the poster who initially said I no longer give the company free time. And there have been numerous layoffs since I adopted this attitude. I am still here. In the meantime, I have witnessed several people who offered countless extra hours get shown the door. I'm not doing anything immoral or illegal, as I still work my designated 40 hours per week, and I do so at a high level. I just don't give the company anything extra, and anyone who does is being foolish for the many reasons outlined above.

    If a company takes a people over position attitude, it can shift high-producing employees into other roles that they can succeed at, even if their specific position is being eliminated. A position over people policy isn't this flexible, and it only hurts companies in the long term. Think about it. The company not only loses some good employees forever, it loses a good deal of productivity from those who remain.

  60. According to that AP story, USA Today has an investigative reporting team of 9. Compare that to the number of its entertainment reporters: 30.

  61. The Newseum a charity? You've got to be kidding! It's a trough from which ex-Gannett executives slurp up nice chunks of retirement cash while spending the place into oblivion.

  62. The Gannett Foundation used to be staffed and was charitable. Not much money there any more for Gannett communities.
    The Freedom Forum and Newseum are tax shelters for Big Al's loyalists, whose huge salaries and hubris (moving the palace from Arlington to downtown D.C.) are breaking the bank. And I mean the top brass, not the minimum wage guards or people operate the gift shop. Those hard working folks keep getting laid off. How much longer can The Freedom Forum run multiple offices around the country when Newseum debt is burning through cash?

  63. 10:11 is correct. Just go to and search Google under "companies" and you'll find staff like April Anderson who is Head of Retail and Tech Sales for Google. Her summary: April joined Google in 2002 and leads the Retail and Technology sectors of Google's Online Sales channel. She oversees all advertiser relationships across those markets and has met with hundreds of clients to understand their marketing goals and share ideas on how to be successful in today's online marketplace. April also works directly with Google's broader organization to align product offerings in accordance with marketers' continually evolving needs. April has a B.A. in International Relations and a M.A. in Sociology from Stanford University.

  64. A charity doesnt charge 20 bucks to get into the building like the newseum does.

  65. 9:37, here's a random sampling of the "huge dollars" you're touting the Gannett Foundation to offer its communities:
    Elmira-area programs received $11,100.. The largest grant in the Elmira area was $3,000 for the United Way of the Southern Tier for the agency’s 2011 needs.

    Other local recipients include:

    * Catholic Charities of Chemung and Schuyler counties: $2,000 toward the purchase of beds, mattresses and bedding for Second Place East homeless shelter in Elmira.

    * The Salvation Army in Elmira: $2,100 toward stocking the Salvation Army food pantry.

    * Schuyler County Soil Water Conservation District in Montour Falls: $2,000 in support of the Southern Tier Regional Envirothon.

    * Woodlawn Youth Center Inc.: $2,000 toward the purchase of program supplies for the youth center.

    Whoa, baby. While I'm certain those folks appreciate the offerings, huge dollars it is not.

  66. Under U.S. tax law, the Newseum is a charity. Look it up for yourself. The Newseum also promotes itself as a charity with donors, who are able to take deductions for their contributions like a church.

  67. Gannett "properties" give to local charities largely off the backs of its workers. You can bet that if you don't make a payroll-deducted contribution to United Way or the publisher's cause du jour, it will weigh against you somehow someday. And as for all the corporate support to charity, that money was available thanks to the pay raise freezes, furloughs, layoffs, overtime fraud, underpaid mileage reimbursement, higher insurance contributions, the cancellation of pension contributions and all the other clever devices Gannett uses to screw its workers.

  68. I'm sure the Newseum is a "charity" under the tax laws....But how it operates is a totally different matter. It's a cash machine for ex-Gannett executives who were used to treating "their" newspapers like ATMs.

    There's nothing charitable about the newseum.

  69. Like a church? Yeah, Al Neuharth is the pope!


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.