Saturday, March 05, 2011

What happened to 'journalistic responsibilities?'

Have the company's "vision" and "mission" statements changed?

The following is from Gannett's website . . .

Consumers will choose Gannett media for their news and information needs, anytime, anywhere, in any form.

To successfully transform Gannett to the new environment.

We will provide must-have news and information on demand across all media, ever mindful of our journalistic responsibilities.

. . . while this is from Page 2 of the new logo guidelines:

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

Mission Statement
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 unparalled 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.


  1. That mission staement stuff is so awful. Just horrible. It inspires anbd informs no one; it seems to be a way non-thinkers can somehow figure out what they are supposed to be doing in a cerebral (lower case), way that masks the fact that they have actual skills -- either sales, reporting, marketing or positioning.

    They truly are empty suits and when called to show their "stuff,'' all they can come up with is the emptiest and hollowest of words.

    Seriously. Read that stuff. Tell your relatives, here's what we're supposed to be doing, and then read it to them and watch their faces.

    Really really sad. From people who should know better.

  2. Glad to see they adopted the mission ("catalyst for the conversation") from the last USAT administration. God knows the current leadership can't come up with anything original.

  3. Not trying to pick on anyone, but when the first sentence of your mission is "To successfully transform Gannett to the new environment" that's rather awful. I WAS under the impression in 2006 that Gannett was transforming to the "new environment" when all of the "circle" crap went on. Did that last transformation not work out, are they going in yet another direction or are they still trying to figure out what Gannett is going to be when she grows up?

    What is this new environment? It sounds to be jibberish for: "we are no longer planning on honoring our past commitments to journalism ethics and standards and are now focusing our efforts on a marketing/pr approach in our content distribution efforts?" If so, WHY don't they just say that?!?!

    If the folks at the top have been wasting the last year working on this jibberish, it sounds like this "unsinkable ship" just filled up "watertight" bulkhead 13 of 14.

    Oh, if anyone is interested in seeing what the investment clowns think about Gannett, the reading on the yahoo finance gci board has become quite amusing lately.

  4. What a Krok of S**T

  5. To put the mission statement and rebranding into perspective:

    Horse manure wrapped in fancy paper is still horse manure!

  6. Please be sure to use the Neenah Classic Crest recycled FSC certified paper specified in the brand requirements.

    Neenah Paper has plants in at least two of our markets - Appleton and Atlanta - and it's always best to do business with the people who do business with you.

    And pay NO attention to the fact how much Neenah Paper's logotype looks like the new Gannett logotype.

  7. Doesn't say much about news and information, does it?

  8. To put the mission statement and rebranding into perspective:

    Horse manure wrapped in fancy paper is still horse manure!

    And it still STINKS

  9. Whatever happened to "A World of Voices Where Freedom Speaks"?

    And then there was, "Print the news; raise hell and have fun doing it."

  10. "Consumers." Gah. Couldn't they have just said "readers and viewers"?

    "On demand." What are we, faucets? We're journalists. News breaks, we cover it. Dastardly deeds are hidden, we uncover them. But we aren't a utility company.

    Or are we?

  11. "Journalistic responsibilities?" Gannett stopped caring about journalistic responsibilities when it cut news staffs so deep it became almost impossible to get a paper out every day. Watchdog journalism? Investigations? Can't do that with a staff of 4 reporters. Lucky to get the arrests and briefs typed in every day! But, hey, as long as Do-Nothing Dubow gets his big bonus, who cares about the product?

  12. "Print the news; raise hell and have fun doing it." That works great when you have a monopoly on the dissemination of information in a community, and the strong backing of classified revenue. I can't believe how many people seem to think that all would be well as long as we pretend it's 1953 again.

  13. Real life, real news!

  14. "To successfully transform Gannett to the new enrinonment."

    Okay. Then what? Sorry, but mission statements should be more forward looking. Same for this one....

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

    If the past few years serves as any guide, then both seem like a tremendous stretch of this company's current capabilities and culture. More so when one considers that Gannett is only now making moves that many, even smaller companies in this industry made years ago.

  15. No one is yearning for 1953. We know the high-profit model for journalism is broken. What's sickening is the money grab and complete lack of imagination at the top while workers get dumped on - then dumped. It's the kind story that the trade journals or journalism groups, which themselves are all close to broke, just don't touch.

  16. "Journalistic responsibilities?" Hello, Kate Marymont? Kate, are you there? Anywhere? Hello? Hello...?

  17. Once upon a time, Joe Junod, a very wonderful man who gave his life to Gannett only to be dismissed by the current administration during the 2009 unpleasantness, taught some of us up-and-coming executives about the Marine Corps mission statement: Kill the Enemy.

    Brilliant in its simplicity, it defines what a Marine does with a minimum of words. Every Marine knows it. And, if your job is more than two steps away from killing the enemy (helping the guy who helps the guy who kills the eneny), a Marine shouldn't be doing that task.

    I wonder what Joe would say about this crap.

    And I really wish Gannett would have given us a brand that we could rally around, not some overcooked collection of buzzwords and lingo.


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.