An independent journal about the Gannett Co. and the news industry's digital transition
What ? No posts.Everyone must be waiting for the ax to drop.Isn't this the predicted week for layoffs?
10:24-yes it is, this Thursday.What is up with Gannett stock today, 10% increase in the first hour?
does anyone know if there are any properties in New Jersey that will be affected?
Stock's up on the rumors of further layoffs I'm sure. We all know how wall street loves layoffs. Almost as much as Gannett.
Saw this today under the social media listing on a website:We're Facebook-free due to their sneaky, intrusive privacy attacks.
Was there ever a definitive answer as to how the fleeting f-word appeared in that Greenville sports story last week?
I was recently watching a PBS film on the decline of the newspaper industry. It was called "Stop the Presses." One of the experts interviewed was talking about various companies buying up privately owned newspapers over the last few decades. He mentioned Gannett as being the one newspaper company least respected and most feared by journalists and publishers. Makes me wonder why anyone -- particularly a journalist -- would want to work for a company that for decades has had the single worst reputation in the business. Add to that the way Gannett has treated its employees during the recession...and well, I just don't see how a company like this will ever attract top talent in the future unless they buy up every paper, website and TV station in the land!
Nice jump on Gannett stock. Every time it tops $12 I dump some or all of it. My own little protest — the company may not notice but it makes me feel better.
@12:56, WSJ today had a story on Yahoo's battle in stemming the exodus of employees: http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204083204577078403954893904.html. It's interesting to read how other companies in trouble still worry about retaining talent -- unlike Gannett, which worries only about thinning the ranks as much as possible while still keeping the lights on.
To 12:48 p.m. Jim posted this on Friday, one day after the f-word caper. It can't take that long to figure out what computer it came from! Maybe the editor thinks people will forget about it? Or does "we will deal appropriately with it," mean we'll hear no more about it?In a one-paragraph note today, Executive Editor John Pittman apologized to readers about yesterday's unexplained appearance of an expletive in a story -- a case that generated national headlines:"In the Thursday edition of The Greenville News, someone added a vulgar word to a wire story inside the Sports section. We are saddened by this and assure everyone that we will deal appropriately with it. We apologize to our readers and the reporter whose name appeared over the story."
Left out of Pittman's note was this quote from the reporter whose name was on the story:"As if I f---in' cared."
First came Patch. Then The Daily (fill in town name). Now, Newsday will invade Westchester with a digital edition, aligning itself with sister operation News12 (both owned by Cablevision). It's yet another confirmation that the Journal-News continues to fail spectacularly as a source of information in print and online, and is ripe for all comers. The one bit of good news: they're hiring.http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/154960/newsday-to-hire-25-in-digital-expansion/
It must be incredibly challenging to work for a company where layoffs are a constant threat. In a profession that doesn't pay well to begin with, getting laid off at Gannett probably means you won't have a lot to fall back on in terms of rainy-day money. And if you happen to be one of the better paid employees at one of the bigger Gannett properties, you probably feel like you have an extra big bulls eye on your back.What a terrible environment to work in. Where there should be creativity, there is fear. Where enterprise is the lifeblood of journalism, there is the reality of needing to fly under the radar. Where newsrooms used to be places of integrity and openness, now there is spin and a bunker mentality.Yes, Gannett has created an every-employee-for-themselves environment that must make it next to impossible to produce a good product these days, not that Gannett was every known for high-end journalism.I feel sorry for Gannettoids and ex Gannettoids who were tossed out like trash. These are good people working for a very bad company.
7:26 excellent words that ring so true- Thank you for that!
Excellent post 7:26.For those current Gannett employees:find a way to get away.
7:26, we know it's true. But it's still good to see it put so well, no matter past or present. This experience is nearly criminal, if not in fact so.
I wonder then... if these CEO's think they will not be brought up on charges. I doubt they have ever dreamed of the idea. But look at the picture. There is no "good faith" demonstrated. These people are Enron, a documented precedent.Still, I don't mean the individuals ill. But I will not excuse of them even while I realize with kharma they'll get their shit. I will not excuse shame made willingly.This sounds silly to some, I'm sure. Not me, nor anyone treated as shit.
Wish I had thought of this before: Gannett shouldn't have paid Craig Dubow's $31 million retirement package in cash. Instead, it should have simply given him one of the newspapers. How about the Asheville Citizen-Times since it's located close to the Dubow scholarship at Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, N.C.
I bet they get away with it. Ruined local employment while a cackling chicken like about good deals for a fork. No longer news. Or some other any other stuff no one really needs, jus' kinda readin' the EFFIN news.Here in Reno (hi, I'm Craig Sevier), we still operated fairly well. Thriving.My life is there and it is not supposed to matter. My life. My job.It matters. Called worthless some of these asses say, licking god knows what.To those types, and they exist, there's a certain owned, self-imposed thunder brought about by being not that good a real person.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Well said, 7:26. Nowhere is this more true than USA Today.
Usa Today is foundering under the weight of no talent executives who are completely out of touch with newsrooms. They can make all the cosmetic changes and proclamations they want. It doesn't change the quality of the product or our reputation with the public.Start with the basics. Build around and hire reporters and editors who give a shit. Teach the on line youngsters about news judgement. Instill in them a sense of pride and caring for the product. Hire basedon qualifications rather than quotas. If someone is obviously a bad fit or can't handle a job, move them quickly or get rid of them. Finally, end the culture of fear and disenfranchisement that permeates and poisons. Dont pay lip service to talking to your people. Make the workplace a collaborative effort. You will see how even small change can make a big difference.
"Hire basedon (your spelling not mine) qualifications rather than quotas" - How 80's of you!Hey 1:15 what quotas are you talking about? Have you looked around lately at who is being hired at USAToday? Geez, you guys kill me! You can hire 77 people of the same race who may or may not be competent, but let one minority of any stripe screw-up and the whole freakin' lot is in danger of being labeled a quota mistake. I hate this shit!
Who is hiring all the talented young people coming out of J-Schools today?is Gannett?
USA today has a minority first hiring program. In lieu of a minority, they generally hire young and cheap. Just ask Brent Jones, the hiring gatekeeper.I have no problem with this if the hires are competent. No one does.
"Gannett has created an every-employee-for-themselves environment..."7:26,This is so true here at USAT. I can act that way at times and have to correct myself. Never used to be this way. And our marginally talented, cast-off from other companies leadership is the root cause.
We don't need any more token, quota hires. The ones so far have been bad enough.
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