Here's a screenshot of a page illustrating "Maryam's M.O.,'' a feature profile of Gannett's chief marketing officer published in the winter 2009 issue of Barnard College's alumnae magazine. Maryam Banikarim received a bachelor's degree in political science from the New York City school in 1989.
In a September interview, Banikarim defended USA Today after an Adweek writer said Gannett's leading daily "dumbed down" the news.
"The notion of 'dumbing down' is such a New York and L.A.-centric elitist idea," she said. "They were never trying to compete with The New York Times or Wall Street Journal. This is a newspaper that is almost like a morning show. The person who reads USA Today is quite successful and affluent, but they’re not focused on being elitist."
In that Barnard magazine photo, I've drawn an arrow pointing to a newspaper. But which one?
Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the rail, upper right.
"The notion of 'dumbing down' is such a New York and L.A.-centric elitist idea," she said. "They were never trying to compete with The New York Times or Wall Street Journal. This is a newspaper that is almost like a morning show. The person who reads USA Today is quite successful and affluent, but they’re not focused on being elitist."
In that Barnard magazine photo, I've drawn an arrow pointing to a newspaper. But which one?
- The New York Times
- USA Today
- The Wall Street Journal
- Other ______________
I'm fairly confident she's holding a copy of The New York Times.
ReplyDeleteBanikarim, who works in New York-centric City, told the Barnard College magazine that when she flies first class, she seldom sees other women -- an indication of how few women are in upper management.
She also said that being a high-powered executive requires lots of travel, which makes it hard to raise children -- one reason why she and her husband employ a full-time nanny.
Just curious, why did you feel compelled to include the nanny reference. It feels sexist. Do you have a problem with successful, high powered women?
ReplyDeleteIf, as the young lady is quoted as saying, USA Today "is more like a morning show", over the years it's gone from the once-vaunted "Today" show to one of those local morning shows you see in West Jeppip.
ReplyDeleteGath
Jim, seriously, what is the point of all this?
ReplyDeleteIs anyone running a pool on how long this self-promoting, job-hopping careerist will stay at Gannett? Based on her LinkedIn profile, I'm betting 2 years ...
ReplyDeleteAll of this seems a rather cheap shot, Jim. I'm usually one of your defenders. But how about laying off the snarky observations of what she's reading and her personal choice to hire a nanny? Pick the battle that's worth winning.
ReplyDeleteBesides, she said USA Today doesn't aspire to be an elitist newspaper like NYT or WSJ. That doesn't mean she shouldn't be reading those newspapers. She -- as well as everyone else in the business -- ought to be reading them.
Can there be a non-elite elitist? Flies first class, reads the NYT and has a full time nanny. Sounds like someone leading a pretty elite life. I know a lot of Gannett employees who would like to have a full time nanny because they're having a really hard time juggling two jobs but can't afford one because of they haven't gotten raises from Gannett in years. At least the furloughs give them more time with their families.
ReplyDeleteWe can definitely rule out USAT - I say NYT as well!
ReplyDeleteYou really nailed that one, Jim.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, is this the best you can do? You do good work, uncover documents, and perform a real service.
Then you undercut it with this Perez Hilton crap. If you have nothing worthy to say, just let a few days go by until something intelligent arises. Adding another thread where people can just take potshots in a personal way really sucks.
And it is pretty immature.
I see nothing wrong with Jim's post or sexist about the nanny comment. Have to agree with the earlier poster on how we'd all love to afford having a full-time nanny, but the thought that does come to mind - and I could care less - is: how well do her kids know their parents?
ReplyDeleteYeah let's talk about your personal life. You live in the most expensive city in the USA on $16,000 a year. You don't have a nanny but you surely have a sugar daddy. And don't tell us about your "investments." you ended your career living in SF earning $100,000 a year. Near poverty level in the Bay Area. You are way out of line.
ReplyDeleteI very much appreciate Jim, too, but I don't get the point of this thread. Every day, I read as many newspapers as I can -- in print and online, East Coast, West Coast, Midwest, the South, foreign.
ReplyDeleteIt's more than a little interesting to view the world from the perspective of those making decisions about folks working in the trenches.
ReplyDeleteAnd here's that world: joining her family in fleeing Iran during the post-Shah revolution; drinking espresso and reading the existentialists at age 12 in Paris; a political science degree from a blue-stocking Ivy League school; a sojourn to Argentina for tango lessons; an internship in the British Parliament; life and work in the nation's financial and cultural capital.
Does this sound like someone who'd be a natural fit in a conservative, down-market newspaper publisher headquartered in a Virginia office park?
Also, the nanny reference isn't sexist; I would have made the same observation if this was a male executive. (Here's a corollary: Bob Dickey's paying as much as $25,000 to play with a PGA golf pro just days after furloughing thousands of employees, while asserting: "We all will be sharing the financial hardship.")
I should also note that the information here was published with Banikarim's cooperation in the NYT and other outlets, apparently because she thought it would help us know her better.
ReplyDeleteJim, you're now sounding like a guy making cheap, personal attacks. Doesn't sound like the higher-ground Jim we've come to respect here. Her life is her life. If you have shots to take at her as a professional, fine. Bring it. But to take selected parts of her biography and somehow allude to the fact that she's a bad fit for the company ... a bit of a strained and not exactly fair-minded reach.
ReplyDeleteAs for "How well do her kids know their parents?" How's this sound? It's none of your business. She can run her family and personal life any way she pleases.
How about if we get back to posting/talking about business here, Jim et al? Instead of giving the corporate types here lots of ammo to slam Jim and this blog?
BTW: I see no apples-to-apples with your Dickey example and the fact that she has a nanny. You really reached this time with a highly personal broadside here, Jim, and you did yourself and your otherwise outstanding efforts a big disservice.
ReplyDeleteFrom my San Francisco-centric perspective, a caddy and a nanny are just about par.
ReplyDeleteJim, you really have jumped the shark with this attack on someone who fled Iran and then the hoi-polloi Paris references. Screw you. Nit everyone has to live YIUR existence, and I'd rather work with someone who has a world-globing interesting background then someone who thinks the world is limned by SF and tropical islands.
ReplyDeleteThis thread really is a low blow, and your defense as even worse. This woman and the marketing depattment have done nothing to cause the turmoil and layoffs at Gannett. How she becomes the target is beyond me -- unless all you're capable of attacking is low-hanging fruit that you see as 'the other' because her background is a little different.
This is sexist, xenophobic, rabble rhetoric you are employing. I too have been a defender but yiur biredom on a Saturday afternoon should not equate to character assassination. And I worked with you way back when! Boo.
Somebody, anybody, please tell me what she does.
ReplyDeleteFor anyone who may be wondering, Merriam-Webster says xenophobia is "fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign."
ReplyDeleteAnd I was curious about sexism. It's defined as "prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially: discrimination against women."
A second meaning, Merriam says, is "behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.
Jim your defense us weak and unprofessional. Thus is right up there with your Moon post last year. And you know which ONE I mean. You are turning out to be a mean spirited individual. Professional shots no problem. Bringing someone's family into a post, just plain wrong. You should be ashamed. No awards for this post
ReplyDeletePost definitions all you want. Your post is sexist. It's a shot at a working woman. Like her, hate her, wrong is wrong. You sir are now playing to the masses to collect contributions. Her nanny has nothing to do with her job. What's next, are you going to publish the brand of scotch Gracia drinks?
ReplyDeleteLooks like there's a team of Martore cult followers on here attacking Jim.
ReplyDelete4:11 Actually, the nanny has everything to do with her professional life, according to what Banikarim herself told the Barnard College magazine.
ReplyDeleteIf you were writing about a leading female executive, wouldn't you include these details? Or did Barnard and the NYT publish sexist/xenophibic stories?
4:31 At the opposite end of the social spectrum, that would be Gracia Martore, the granddaughter of Italian immigrants, who worked three jobs to pay for her Wellesley College education.
ReplyDeleteIt must be tough to know you are wrong but instead of admitting it you sell your soul for a few thousand dollars. Pathetic man.
ReplyDeleteTo attack Mary am for being elitist and out of touch with the Gannett company would be the same as asking how Jim Hopkins, a $100,000 man who took a generous buyout, vacations in Spain and lives in San Francisco, can possibly relate to the press operators, delivery managers and other blue collar employees who look here for information.
ReplyDeleteThose Webster definirions are quite appropriate, becaus Jim has been consistently sexist in this Blog since day one, and now has added xenophobia to the mix. His attempts to inject class warfare, though, ring hollow from the true elitist -- Jim "I don't have to work" -- Hopkins.
I'm laughing right now at these unwarranted, absurd attacks on Jim. You ladies need to chill.
ReplyDeleteOy. I'm a sexist, xenophobic, elitist, globe-trotting, rabble-rousing, sugar daddy-dependent class warrior who's in league with the devil.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's only Jan. 7.
Looks like a long year ahead . . .
Sarcasm only Dimishes you. Edit yourself. Ok you hate Gannett. Your friends know why. But you don't have to
ReplyDeleteDebase yourself in the process.
This woman is totally out of touch with this company. More power to her and her lifestyle. But she won't be happy at Gannett and has nothing to contribute. She isn't even trying. It will be a short marriage.
ReplyDeleteJim, on the other hand, has probably saved the laid-off thousands a king's ransom in therapy bills. He probably needed some himself in the process, but he sure can bounce back.
They're both survivors, just not at Gannett. But what Jim is saying is just fair comment and criticism. Same with those who are trashing him; I just don't happen to agree with them. But that's OK, as long as they aren't paid posters. Probably is a mix.
And Gannett? Not a good place to try to survive. If you're there and haven't climbed in a lifeboat yet, I'm worried for you.
5:43, you have truly lost it with those claims.
ReplyDeleteSeek therapy at once.
5:43 is right. Banikarim comes from a life totally out of the realm of most Gannett (or rest of the world) employees. If she used those experiences to bring innovation or brilliance to her Gannett job, I'd say great.
ReplyDeleteBut she has not done a single thing to advance Gannett or USAT.
She won't last. She will end up in a job that is more in line with her long elitist resume.
As a female executive in a company where thousands have sacrificed, she should be a role model and NOT fly first class, NOT fly the corporate jet, offer flex-time for working parents, allow tele-commuting for working moms, and get in the trenches.....not sit in the biggest office in expensive NewYork real estate.
ReplyDeleteShe does none of this.
6:16, but you said she should NOT do those things.
ReplyDeleteWriting -- it continues to puzzle many people here. And by some strange coincidence, they are out of the company.
Did she seriously say that she sees very few female executives in first class?
ReplyDeleteHey Maryam, there are millions of female executives in the U.S.....they just don't need to fly first class to prove they are powerful.
They fly coach and save money and jobs.
What an arrogant and elitist comment.
No 6:31 that wasn't the point. Power flies in first class. She is indicating we need more powerful women in leadership positions. It's a metaphor for heaven sake about feminism.
ReplyDeleteI was a Gannett exec. I flew in first nearly exclusively. Didn't pay for it most of the time; used miles and credits to upgrade. That's what smart WOMEN do. Yes, I'm a woman. But I saw tons of women in first class. Maybe she doesn't know where to look.
ReplyDelete6:28. What 6:16 wrote made perfect sense. Maybe you can't read.
And I smell corporate posters. Go home. You only show how uncreative and uncommunicative the corporate lackeys are at Gannett.
Oh, waaaaaah. I'm so sorry for you, MB. Your kids have to be raised by a nanny because you have to work such long hours? Give me a break. That's no different than the $55K ACE who has to hire babysitters and get his parents to watch the kids for free because he has to work another 12-hour shift, again.
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental difference is that you have the cash to pay for a nanny. The ACE doesn't (which is why he has to ask his parents).
Nor does he fly first-class. In fact, he's lucky to have enough money to scrape together a few coach tickets for a summer vacation for his family someplace.
Reading the NYT or WSJ? Forget it. He's living paycheck to paycheck, and doesn't even have the extra cash to subscribe to his own paper.
The only people who say money doesn't matter are those who have plenty of it.
8:24 why is it that anyone who disagrees with your negative attack on someone has to be a "corporate poster?" not every Gannett employee hates leadership, the company or anyone with a successful career.
ReplyDelete....in any event, Jim most certainly has
ReplyDeletestruck a nerve!
Oh, Jesus! I'm out of popcorn!
Wow, this thread has really touched a nerve. All I want to know is (1) what has she done at Gannett to be worth the huge salary we are paying her? I don't really give a crap about her gender. I'd ask this of any high profile executive, as I have yet to be convinced there's a single corporate type who really understands the enormous sacrifices being made every day by the front line workers in this company.
ReplyDelete9:17 only with you folks who condemn anything Gannett. I for one fore back when I feel Jim has crossed a line. The nanny stuff was purposefully inflammatory. She and her husband make a lot of money and have a nanny. So what? You guys pile on, I comment. I was under the impression that all voices were welcome. If that's not the case then say so Jim
ReplyDelete"Enormous sacrifices?"
ReplyDeleteSorry, yes, the company is laying off people and that truly sucks. But what enormous sacrifices? Still pretty sweet jobs most people have.
8:24, very unoriginal. Get some new material.
ReplyDeleteJim, your 2:55 comment is spot on. No worries about Banikarim. Just like her male counterparts at this level, she takes care of herself and has an eye out for her next gig.
ReplyDeleteShe knows G is just 12-24 month pit stop, one that luckily provides her with the kind of paycheck/benefits us regular peon workers could never imagine.
You are all so wrong about her. How can you say that about her. She is clearly reading a Florida Today.
ReplyDeleteFor the last time, what does she do?
ReplyDeleteBesides collect fat paychecks, stock options and bonuses?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis entire thread strikes at the class envy thing. Face it, rank and file: Executives make more money than you do, OK? Get over it. It doesn't mean they're any happier.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Jim bringing this up in the first place: Jim, unless you have some kind of hard evidence that GCI is paying for the nanny, you went way, way out of bounds by entering this into any kind of discussion. Because at that point, you're intruding upon her private life -- the choices she has made to raise her family. Hiring a nanny on her own dime (and you have no idea what circumstances may have made her make this choice) isn't the same as the very good "let them eat cake" reporting you've done here on CD's relentless feeding at the trough at the expense of worker's jobs/quality of product and all the other excesses you've nailed.
As Hyman Roth would put it, the nanny thing "has nothing to do with business." So stick to what we come here for, Jim: Business. Not stoking the embers here on the class divide.
Wincing about a nanny comment? Lord .... compare yours with hers. Think she was positioned due to her acumen?
ReplyDelete7:25 said "Power flies in first class. She is indicating we need more powerful women in leadership positions. It's a metaphor for heaven sake about feminism."
ReplyDeleteI don't buy it for a second. I'm a female executive and after corporate asked me to submit names of employees to reduce staff I NEVER flew first class again....to make a point. Executives should be willing to sacrifice with the workers. To work in a company like Gannett, who has laid off over 20,000 employees, and then choose to fly first class is a total insult.
These types of women (or men) are not powerful but cowards and out of touch.
Maryam, that was a very foolish thing to say. 7:25, you need a dose of reality.
I don't care if she's disliked due to her arrogance....as long as she does something to generate revenue and help the company.
ReplyDeleteSo far there has not been a single marketing initiative brought forward by her and all her fancy friends. Her posse just flies back and forth to McLean from NY, eats at expensive restaurants, racks up bills at the Ritz Carlton McLean and has ZERO to show for it.
She fired a bunch of great people with long Gannett careers, hired a PR agency to generate press about herself, put Martore in embarrassing publicity stunts on Gannett TV stations, and shown zero revenue accountability.
Jim, people are clearly fed up. Keeping these overpaid do-nothing executives at check is important to us over-worked under-paid folks in the field.
Why did Martore feel the need to hire a CMO?
ReplyDeleteSeems the money being thrown at these marketing hires could be better spent. IE: technology to help journalists deliver the news.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI edit or remove comments that poke fun at someone's appearance. Here's an edited version of 12:09's:
ReplyDeleteWSJ in hand and NYT on table.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteRegarding my reference to Banikarim's employing a full-time nanny, 10:27 says that was out of bounds: "You're intruding upon her private life -- the choices she has made to raise her family."
ReplyDeleteTo reiterate something I wrote earlier, Banikarim volunteered this information in an interview. No one, including me, found this in a leaked internal memo or court document.
This raises a question: Can a journalist (me) intrude on someone's private life when using information the subject has willingly made public?
Here, for the record, is the full, two-paragraph passage from the Barnard magazine story, which targets a largely female audience:
[Banikarim is] still sometimes struck by how few fellow females there actually are in top corporate-management slots. "When you sit in business class on the plane and look around there aren't too many women," she says, adding that there are even fewer in first class.
Banikarim definitely understands why that might be the case, and why up-and-coming women business executives might decide the constant travel and demanding hours are not worth it, especially once they decide to start having children. She adds that she's been lucky, since her husband, who has his own Internet consulting business, has a flexible schedule and has been a big help with their two children. Plus, the couple has a full-time nanny. But even with that kind of support Banikarim says trying to balance the demands of work and family is an ongoing struggle and she frequently feels torn: "I get a lot of 'Mom, can you get off the BlackBerry?'"
Anybody know what she does at Gannett? How does what she do help my community paper go forward?
ReplyDeleteJim, this whole thread began with your petulant broadside. it made no sense, made no point, and only diminishes you. Hey look, she's reading the Times? She has a nanny!
ReplyDeletePlease.
Your defenses, if you can even call them that, are even worse.
Seriously.
I wonder if she misses business/first class now that she's here. I recall an edict in the last two years requiring the cheapest seats possible, and I'm sure that policy is the same regardless of position.
ReplyDeleteHEY, QUIT LAUGHING!
i wish she would make herself a role model on how to balance life/family by offering working parents more flex time, more tele-commuting. That would impact workers in a positive light.
ReplyDeleteSeems smart female executives have an opportunity to change the workplace, especially given all the advances in technology that allow women and men to work from home.
Sad women like Maryam have not embraced that.
Empathy toward workers life/balance needs goes a long way to building high performing loyal employees.
When is Maryam and her band of marketing friends from NBC going to reveal what they keep saying is "something we've been working on".
ReplyDeleteTime to share with the employees what EXACTLY a CMO and newly minted marketing team was hired to do.
Will it generate more revenue and offset layoffs?
Will it advance Gannett with advertisers and subscribers?
2:09 Merriam-Webster's definition of petulant:
ReplyDelete1. insolent or rude in speech or behavior
2. characterized by temporary of capricious ill humor
2:14 she flies on the corporate jet.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how much all the travelling between NY and VA is costing us.
2:09 your support of her is starting to make me wonder if you work for the PR firm she hired to comb the blog.
ReplyDeleteMuch of the questioning going on here is valid and of interest to the worker bees in the field.
Gannett has a very long history of excessive pay to management at the hands of the workers.
Give it up.
Jim, there is a difference between using the 'nanny' detail in a magazine feature profile (along with a photo of her reading NYC-produced newspapers) and you doing what you're doing: Extracting (exploiting) these two key details to present a broadside slam here about her personal choices because it strikes you as "elitist" in a blog, stoking up the class-envy fires here.
ReplyDeleteJust focus on how she and other GCI leaders are failing to lead the company into a revenue-generating future, OK? If she fails at her job and collects an outrageous bonus, then report it. But to sit there as a non-parent (which I take it you are) with no idea about her personal circumstances -- or what it's like to raise kids in the first place -- and make these kinds of 'tsk tsk ... see? She's an elitist' broadsides strikes me and your other supporters as unnecessarily personal and, frankly, cheap. We have come to expect you to fight hard, but fight fair, here, because that is how you have conducted yourself throughout the life of this blog.
I have serious issues with MB's work priorities and what she brings to the table regarding Gannett's future. i do not like her accomplishments to date. however, as part of a dual income household with young children, i completely understand the need for childcare, and in a metropolitan area, the need for nannies. jim, you really off base here regarding anyone's child care situation.
ReplyDeleteSo Jim do you think the 3:34 post is appropriate. "iranian dictator?" so now attacks on one's birthplace/ethnicity is okay with you? Man you really are getting mean spirited in your old age. But heaven forbid if someone uses the T word. Then you delete the post. What's next attacks on one's religion, race, sexuality?
ReplyDelete4:56 I removed that comment, although not because of the reference to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a dictator. (It's highly debatable whether he's legitimately in office.) It was the rest of the post that was out of line.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing wrong with acknowledging a nanny. It's a given for high income elites. Reality for most households in which both parents are lucky enough to have jobs is working different shifts/days. Or, being lucky enough to have grandma/pa live close by.
ReplyDeleteI was fortunate enough to lose my job so no nanny needed! Hopelly my 45k a year off the boks helps pay for her first class airline tickets. Because we all know more women are need in first class. Cant believe you people dont have your priorities straight.
ReplyDeleteThis is why there is an #occupywallstreet movement. The ruling class elitists have no clue how they are perceived by the working class.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure they think flying first class while 20,000 workers are laid off is wrong. Or paying themselves millions.
Ms. Banikarim has lived in the elitist city of NYC far too long to understand what goes on in the lives of most Gannett employees in the trenches out here in the small towns.
Another question: Was Banikarim using the word elitist as a compliment? Or was it a put-down?
ReplyDeleteAnd another question: how long will Banikarim remain at GCI?
ReplyDeleteOk Jim this is now beyond boring
ReplyDeletePeople seem to forget that Al started it to be the anti- NYT, WAPO and WSJ. From it's debut USAT has been put down as being too lightweight, of no "nutritional" value - hence the nickname McPaper. The nastiest, most condescending criticisms did in fact come from "elites" on both coasts and especially journalism elites. Banikarim is just stating a fact - the notion that USAT is "dumbing down" the news is an elitist perception, not the truth. Where are the USAT journalists on this notion? Why are they not thanking Banikarim for her DEFENSE of USAT? Is it that they agree with the elites, that USAT is in fact dumbed-down news?
ReplyDelete2:34, get some new material. The "workers of the world, unite" stuff has been old for a long time.
ReplyDeleteThis was simply a test to prove how out of touch you all are 76 posts. If Jim was to start a thread looking for answers how to fix this plane wreck on top of a train wreck company we all work for there would be maybe 3 posts. The first would be asking about layoffs, the second would be about CD retirement package, and the third would be from a former employee trying to get answers about Cobra.
ReplyDeleteA better solution would be an on-site child care arrangement or coop. think of the mileage women in Gannett executive roles get for this. plus employee goodwill and productivity boost. should be plenty of room in gannett offices with 20,000 fewer employees. Gracia, Marymount, Maryam, how about it?
ReplyDelete6:44 Maybe you are the one out of touch. 76 posts tells me people read the blog and comment when they believe strongly enough...one way or another....about any issue.
ReplyDeleteYou don't have to like Jim's angle but many posters here make some compelling points.
7:13 Didn't The Courier-Journal in Louisville, Ky., have a near on-site childcare center until shortly after Gannett bought the paper? The center had a clever name, I recall.
ReplyDeleteJim, you should end this thread now... MAB must be so flattered to have received all these comments.
ReplyDelete8:07 Excellent idea!
ReplyDeleteThank you all for contributing. As always, the reader posts were the most interesting.