The News-Press' recent $240,000 gift to a local children's museum is mostly in the form of free advertising and other promotion, rather than in cash, I confirmed today, after reporting the donation by the Florida newspaper earlier this week.
Although the Golisano Children's Museum of Naples said in a news release that the Fort Myers paper had "donated $240,000,'' a Gannett Blogger questioned the amount, as well as my speculation that a contribution that size would necessarily have come from the Gannett Foundation.
So, I asked Publisher Mei-Mei Chan about the gift. In an e-mail today, she wrote:
"This was a three-year partnership with modest cash and mostly trade. There was no Gannett Foundation funding involved. We’ll strive to be more clear with partners in future press releases!"
Prior to writing my first post, I contacted a museum spokeswoman to make sure the release was authentic. Now, I wish I had first checked with Chan, too.
So, I asked Publisher Mei-Mei Chan about the gift. In an e-mail today, she wrote:
"This was a three-year partnership with modest cash and mostly trade. There was no Gannett Foundation funding involved. We’ll strive to be more clear with partners in future press releases!"
Prior to writing my first post, I contacted a museum spokeswoman to make sure the release was authentic. Now, I wish I had first checked with Chan, too.
"Now, I wish I had first checked with Chan, too."
ReplyDeleteI bet you do, you amateur. Seriously, Jim, this stuff is remedial reporting. Yet you make these mistakes again and again.
When someone - especially someone in the media who is supposed to make their living at writing with clarity - says they donated $250,000 to a museum, my logical conclusion is that this is what they did.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't Jim's "fault" or faulty reporting.
In-kind advertising or trade should never be rolled up with cash to inflate a donation amount to make yourself look better, and that is what the Ft. Myers paper was attempting to get away with.
Shame on them - not Jim - for not stating it clearly in the first place!
jim, you were a reporter for USAT all those years and you screwed this up?? Actually, no, you didn't ... you really had no interest in being fair to begin with. Good Lord, I bet your bosses were thrilled to get rid of you. Pathetic. Again. the Jimbo Way.
ReplyDeleteDamn you, 8:23, you stole my post.
ReplyDeleteFirst, to be fair, the source is admitting lack of clarity. That being said, I know that in one newsroom, a mistake like this would have led to Jim being assigned a mentor and being placed on some type of unofficial probationary status for a time.
I have to assume that Jim either rushed to judgment here to continue bashing Gannett or that he's made this type of mistake before. I recall someone here used to badger Jim repeatedly about his performance evals. Maybe he should come back.
Jim did not rush to judgment. He checked out a fishy press release. It's refreshing that in this instance a publisher responded with candor rather than get defensive.
ReplyDeleteIf a reputable source - such as a museum or other nonprofit - tells me that someone donated $240,000, I'm not going to waste time calling the donor to confirm. I'm going to take the source at their word. So would 99.99 percent of working reporters.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm glad that 5:41 and 8:23 are among the .01 percent of super-perfect reporters out there. Maybe you can now get off your ass and start writing more than a single project story a month.
9:02, he didn't check anything out until after he ran with the info. That's the point. Try to keep up, eh?
ReplyDelete9:48, if you just rewrote press releases, then let's hope you and the other 99.8 percent who did the same are no longer in a position to rewrite press releases.
Also, defenders, one of you has the amount wrong. Perhaps you should improve yourselves if you are going to wage this losing battle. Because you will lose -- Jim should have checked it out, and nothing will change that.
Going to have to step it up, Jim-defenders. You won't be able to spin this one.
The reality is that few reporters would question a routine press release from a seemingly reputable source that would be a brief; nor would they have time to do so. However, once burned, most reporters would check out all such press releases from that source in the future. Now we know.
ReplyDeleteFolks stop bashing Jim. This blog is designed to make Gannett look bad at all times, in all instances. Matore volunteers her time ... Bash her motives. Make a charitable donation....bash the gift. No one ever said the blog was fair or unbiased. No one ever said Jim had a stellar career. No one ever said Jim was fair. So stop holding him or the blog up to some high standard of reporting. It's not fair. Now he did do a fantastic job on the Freedom Forum but that was an anomaly. Give him a break people
ReplyDelete11:52, anyone who rewrites a press release without contacting anyone risks exactly this sort of outcome.
ReplyDelete11:54, I'm not sure what you are trying to do. And I'm not sure you know what you are trying to do.
With so few journalists left at newspapers and at crappy Patch sites, Yahoo, etc. press releases are slapped online or on paper more than ever. At least Jim, a one-man band, had the right instinct to follow up.
ReplyDelete12:13, after he ran with the original info. Stop making excuses; you just look sad.
ReplyDeleteSo when a church submits a press release for a calendar item for a chicken dinner, do you call the pastor and verify that every element - time, date, place, cost - is accurate? Or do you see that it's written on church letterhead and rewrite it for your calendar?
ReplyDeleteWhen the mayor sends out a press release about a grant to a local fire company, do you call the mayor's office and verify all the details? Or do you see that it's coming from a reputable source and trust it?
I'm glad that you assholes have so much time on your hands that you can afford to do that. My paper doesn't even verify identities of letters-to-the-editor authors all the time now. Go suck a friggin' egg.
10:20 the figure was so large, so out of the ordinary, yeah he should have checked. In the history of Gannett the Foundation has never given a grant of this magnatude. Comon sense dictates he'd check. But when you run an attack blog the truth is not as important as getting the smear up. Once again I will say it, other than the great piece on the Freedom Forum Jim just throws crap up and hopes something sticks. It's a fact, sorry if the truth hurts.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete4:13 You are correct that the amount was unusually large. But a gift that size would not have been a record, according to the foundation's 2008-2009 IRS tax reports, the most recent available.
ReplyDeleteIn 2009, the foundation gave $1.5 million to the Rochester Area Community Foundation. And in 2008, it gave even more to the same group: $8.6 million. (Why the big drop-off? The Gannett Foundation's spendable assets fell a lot.)
(Also the foundation gave well more than $800,000 in 2009 and 2008 to the QUARTET Community Foundation in the U.K. But that's really a bulk grant to the Newsquest newspaper division, which then gets divvied out to individual non-profits in the U.K.)
And, 4:13, you are completely incorrect when you call my original post on this gift a "smear." I challenge you to show how it was in anyway negative.
It was negative because it was incorrect. You have a history of being wrong in a negative way toward the company.
ReplyDeleteDoes that help?
Jimmy you can "challenge" all you wish. Here is a fact. You researched past large gifts after your post was challenged. You love to remind readers that you have 25 years experience. Even a recent grad would have done a deeper dive when they saw the size of the gift. You didn't. Sloppy at best, calculated at worst. You are starting to phone it in Jim. Sloppy is sloppy pure and simple. Kind of a sad conclusion to an unremarkable career. I bet it eats at you that this Blog is the only thing for which you will be known. New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, USAT, Gannett Blog. Wow! Amazing no other media organization has scooped you up. You can delete this post now. I'm sure I used a word that is on your no use list. By the way it is time to beg fir some money.
ReplyDeleteThe sarcasm failed. He only worked for USAT and GB. But don't forget those potato stories in Boise!
ReplyDeleteNever worked with Jim, but I'd prefer him over about 90% of the Gannett reporters I had the misfortune of working with.
ReplyDeleteSo 9:16 your retort is you'd rather work with an unremarkable, firmer writer, who has only written one true in depth story in four years, over hard working journalists that you've worked with? I'd love to hear what those journalists think if you. I'm not sure that was the zinger defense of Jim you were truly going for. But please, jeep them coming. Jimmy needs all the support he can get. Your fan base Jim....how proud you must be. He just dissed the entire reporting workforce
ReplyDelete#OWS Is About Justice, Not Wealth or Class These people aren't protesting money. They're not protesting banking. They're protesting corruption on Wall Street like Gannett. You get laid off, Pip'd furloughed, you work for those who are gone, while Dubow gets $38 million golden parachute as if he did a great job. Unions = jobs. #occupygannett #occupywallst the revolution will be streamed
ReplyDelete7:37, considering this blog is quoted by other news organizations, I can assure you it holds some weight. When Gannett is gone, Jim will be remembered as the source who chronicled its demise.
ReplyDeleteActually, Jim's gaffe is similar to ones I saw many reporters make. Sometimes they were young and inexperienced. Sometimes they were simply not paying attention or had become apathetic.
ReplyDeleteSomeone with a good rep usually could absorb that type of mistake without much punishment. But others were usually assigned to a mentor and placed on some sort of unofficial probation. The explanation provided was we were taking precautions and not punishing the individual. The people who wanted to improve usually advanced back to "independent" worker status, and the ones who didn't would bitch about getting a mentor. Usually they ended up leaving, although a couple of people would alternate between independent and watch status, never really grasping what was happening. After I left, one of them somehow moved on to a larger newspaper and the other one was dismissed for lack of production/lack of improvement/lack of ability.
11:39 so are you saying as the Official chronicle it's ok to get lazy over lattes and fail to check the facts?
ReplyDelete@8:11 AM...11:39 isn't saying it- EVERY corporate ass pulling the strings in this company is. Wake up and smell the latte!
ReplyDelete