An independent journal about the Gannett Co. and the news industry's digital transition
On such a historic day we wonder how many Gannett executives and managers are openly LGBT?
Gannett's new slogan. "Yesterday's news tomorrow"?
Seriously. Did you see this job posting for a 70K job in Lafayette, IN: http://www3.editorandpublisher.com/ep_jobs/viewJob.aspx?JId=423Does this replace an existing position or one lost through buyout. How is this different than the editor - or does the editor answer to this person?
From a USA Today blog post, about the resignation of the band leader at Florida A&M after a hazing incident that left a band member dead (emphasis added):"Today his attorney announced he would retire, hours after the Tallahassee Democrat reported that White allowed non-students in the band, a violation of university policy. The paper is published by Gannett, the parent company of USA TODAY."I often see these corporate connections inserted in USAT stories. Why should readers care?
They shouldn't care. They don't care.
"I often see these corporate connections inserted in USAT stories. Why should readers care?"Becase nobody knows who Gannett is, that's why. We all get that puzzled looked look from non-newspaper people, until we mention USAT.
Like so many things, G A N N E T T has not had a consistent approach on such credits. There was Gannett News Service. There was Content One. And I think individual newspaper names were lost. There are credits the read "Gannett/newspaper X." There are stories in the nation's paper that say "USA Today" at the top and give another newspaper at the end. I'm sure that the marketing people have theories about such discordant branding.
Local TV reported it too: http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/FAMU_Enrollment_Problem_Many_of_Marching_100_Not_Enrolled_151036805.htmlAfter reporting the ages of those arrested as in their mid-20s, and the dead drum major (26), a competent journalist would have asked whether or not all the band members were students a long time ago.
7:40 - Gannett doesn't get mired down by accurate details. As long as they get half the story right that's good enough for them.
Because the name "Gannett" is as meaningless as Maryam's interviews.USAT gives this place some credibility. Unfortunately, we are being "Gannettized" everyday and we are much worse for it. Add to the mix a mindless publisher, and there you have it.
Now that she has got rid of the Enquirer's institutional knowledge and laid off more than 20 people last year, Carolyn Washburn can now direct her attention to her new office which will be built in the middle of the newsroom, displace the photography staff and two other senior managers. Word is that the cost will be enormous. Good job Carolyn. We wouldn't begrudge you anything if you showed anything like listening to other people's opinions, having news judgement. But you've done nothing in a year and a half but alienate staff and diminish the quality of the Enquirer both online and in print. You enjoy that new office. It's all rather self-important of you.
USA Today has morphed into the National Enquirer, at least when it comes to sports. Important stuff is de-emphasized; celebrities, hotties and cheerleaders are played up."Tebow renames dog, set off Twitter trend"? WTF should I care?"Patriots sign former Colts RB Joseph Addai"? The Boston Globe had that five days ago -- last Sunday.Boise State football may reconsider joining the Big East -- CBS Sports reported it, USA Today didn't.New Orleans Saints bounty scandal may have continued into last season -- the AP reported it, USA Today didn't.Arizona high school forfeits championship game rather than play against a girl -- the Gannett-owned Arizona Republic broke the story; ESPN picked it up; USA Today buried it.
FORBES EDITOR: THE NEW JOURNALISTI left the Gannettoid carpet-bagger/suck-ups years ago for high-tech. It wasn't easy; it never is.Then again, every day, I'm laughing at the Gannettoids at their useless attempts at relevance, laughing my head off.Today's item worth reading:http://www.forbes.com/sites/lewisdvorkin/2012/05/07/inside-forbes-a-contributors-success-story-from-40000-to-400000-readers/" .. At FORBES, reporters and contributors need to write for their audience, not their editors. They also need to “transact” with their readers, that is engage with them one-on-one. It’s not an easy transition for die hard journalists to make. In fact, it helps explain what The Wall Street Journal’s Chicago bureau chief said to me during my very first job interview: “We like to hire college graduates. We don’t have to break them of bad habits.”You either try something new. Or die professionally. Your choice.
@7:40 / 8:56 AM -- Banikarim’s New Media RULE 3: RELEVANCE OVER RULES defends why:G A N N E T T is supposed to feed “information as it develops. Don’t always wait for final analysis or confirmation. That’s counterintuitive to the way so-called “old media” has operated. “
9:40, Washburn isn't the type of petty tyrant who can stand the thought of anyone else on that floor having an office. That's why the only person who kept one is a guy who doesn't report to her. Her hole in the corner was good enough for her predecessor to hide under his desk, but not nearly big enough to hold her ego. I'm sure this use of the strained budget will benefit the readers somehow. We always put them first, you know.
Well, Washburn's office will be central enough to save time for whoever delivers the subpoenas.
Today's Enquirer reports that Singapore is a city in Asia.
Same paper that placed Afghanistan in the Mideast. The Enquirer gets what it pays for. A new office for its editor.
I sincerely do not understand the point of BRANDING Gannett to consumers. No one consumer is going to be exposed to more than 2 "Gannett" properties at a time. And that's including USA Today. No one cares.Maybe MAYBE the only people who would care are big national advertisers, but then again, the media buying arms are different. The print buying is different than the TV. Which brings me back to WHY? Why are we/they wasting time branding Gannett?
Take some time to learn about your company. Gannett is deeper than your limited view.
uh, Singapore IS in Southeast Asia.
Any updates on the Nashville design hub? I've heard they're struggling to make deadlines and get shit right. Anybody who works there care to share on how things are going? Is the leadership truly as lousy as I've been told? Are there really still a buttload of issues?
I hear you struggle to make deadlines and get shit right. And I've been told your leadership is lousy. Anybody care to share?
OK, 11:42, I'll bite: Why would someone deliver subpoenas to Carolyn Washburn's office?
The biggest indictment of Gannett is this blog.Things are very bad at Gannett, for sure. But things are equally bad at news organizations large and small, with layoffs, firings, reduced coverage commonplace.But nowhere else do you find the mean-spirited venom, the backbiting and the constant negativity than here at the Gannett blog.You wouldn't find staffers at the Times or the Post, all of whom are equally under siege, calling every boss clueless, accusing people of looting the treasury, saying colleagues are lazy, older reporters don't get it, younger digital people are stupid, etc.Only here.And that shows that Gannett's basic workclass is third-rate. Complainers and "victims,'' accusing everyone but themselves for their jobs and their lot in life. Losers. Sorry, a harsh word, but it is true.That does not mean that layoffs and furloughs are not horrible things. They are. Third-rate decisions as well.But if this blog is an indication of the Gannett mindset, and I can only conclude, as an outsider, that it is, then what a pitiful company.Third-rate rantings by third-rate staff. The head of marketing is said to be behind any positive post. Negative posts are accused of being trolls. And on and on.Really pathetic. This blog says it all about Gannett.
I am an outsider as well and share the same opinion as you, 1:48. If I ran this company, I would have taken this blog long ago as a warning sign that there is something inherently wrong with the way business is being conducted and tried to do something, anything to change the employee's mindset for the better. That should have been done at least five years ago when things started to get really bad. I'm afraid now it would be too little too late. I do not agree with you when you call the employees "losers" however. I see the employees as powerless because they can see what is wrong with the way business is conducted but powerless to change it. And when they're being furloughed and RIF'd and the people from Corporate and beyond are taking lavish vacations on the company dime, or receiving outrageous bonuses, it smacks you in the face, the hypocrisy of it all. I'd be pissed too.
Easy to opine with no statistics to support your claims of "lavish vacations" and "outrageous bonuses". Obviously not a journalist.
Thank you for being fair, 2:25.
I am an outsider too, and I read this blog incessantly because of the train wreck aspect.I agree that "losers" is probably too strong a word, but I agree also that this blog is an indictment of people who work at Gannett.My workplace is a crazy place, but nothing could happen to me that would have me sitting at my computer spewing hatred and accusations at Co workers and bosses like happens here every day.There is something wrong at Gannett and I think that yes, it has a lot to do with the mediocre talent there. If you hate it so much, you really should leave. If you cannot, then not sure what can be done for you.The tenor of comments on this blog are 90% unprofessional, immature and vile. The thought of a serious discussion about your new operating system is impossible when it becomes that the woman sending emails is a "jerk'" or that a reporter being a finalist for a Pulitzer is somehow meaningless.This should be a sharp and even angry but professional discussion, among professionals about very real problems.But instead it seems Gannett is a third-rate, as that poster above said, bunch of mediicre employees.Gannett employees deserve better than this being their public "face."
Don't cast the mostly proud and hard working employees with the drivel from this third rate blog.
1:48 really needs to do a little research before posting. And I suggest starting with the $31 million walk-away money Craig Dubow received two years ago.
To claim Gannett’s problems equal its peers 1:48 demonstrates how little you do know as an outsider.Having joined via an acquisition prior to this economic downturn I was stunned, as were other execs who joined me in what we learned about how poorly Gannett was run and how little value they truly placed in what they still give lip service to now - their people. Comments made by many here, while often bold and insightful, often don’t go deep enough for obvious reasons.Fact is Gannett long ago made decisions greatly exacerbating its problems when compared to its peers. And contrary to what you also assume, Gannett’s people as a whole are far from third-rate, unfortunately, the same can’t be said for the lot of managers still left who drove this company deeper into the ground.
Well put, 2:57.
Because all I can do is passively accept other's perspectives...
2:25 here. I meant to say, "don't share the same opinion as you, 1:48"
Nobody knows who posts this stuff. Best guess is that about 90% is by former writers for Jerry Springer (and a few of Mr. Springer's "guests" ). Most of the rest comes from outtakes of The Onion.
3:16,You nailed it. No need for any of us to write on the blog ever again.Doofus.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about 1:48.The papers I worked at prior to being bought by Gannett had hard working, talented staffs that covered and served their comunities. Gannett added nothing positive while putting us through pay cuts, furloughs, lay-offs and buy-outs, cutting our newsroom by more than 50% while the CP people milk millions.Local coverage has dropped with subscriptions, but at least nearly all Gannett papers still have reporters who take photos at bars and write about bartenders.The cuts in staff and coverage have not been nearly as severe at other properties that have competent managers.
I think 1:48 is mostly right (except for the "losers" remark).This blog is essentially unbalanced towards the lunatic side of things. It reflects badly on the company as a place, no matter how justified the anger.
@1:48 PMI agree with most of your observations. But please remember the posters here are not typical Gannett employees. I believe the bulk of the posters are the same ones who loudly complain about ... well every aspect of their life.I had a long career as a director at several Gannett properties and all of the people who worked for, and with me were not of this ilk.
This blog does reflect badly on Gannett but I truly believe this company reaps what it sows.
Bad karma, bad hires, bad biainess decisions bad management promotions and bad hires have chipped away at morale and productivity for years. The underlying anger has been there for a long time at small market Gannett papers and at USA Today . The blog just became a collection point for people to blow off steam.The discontent and lack of control people have over their careers is real. The fear and mistrust management fosters with Each silly antic and memo is incredibly harmful.Free ice cream. That's the best morale builder the company can come with?
4:42, I don't know what directors do. But you probably had a cushy, stress free job and were out the door at 5 everyday, attended all of your kids' events without a care in the world and never world nighs, weekends or holidays. You probably also received bonuses and stock options, too. In other words, you don't represent 90 % of the people who actually produce the product.
@5:52Incorrect. I worked my way up from the bottom and had many 14-16 hour days. Nothing was "cushy." I did receive bonuses (deserved) and worked to ensure the hard workers on my team got something as well for all their efforts.Correct, I am not representative of the prima donna's who believe they are the be-all-end-all of producing the product. I am representative of those who work hard to ensure the product is produced.(I never worked "nighs", but I did work lots of nights)
I had a great week. Looking forward to a great weekend.
We're just curious but what exactly did Ellwood, Hunke, Banikarim, Micek and Frank do all week except lick their cones?
6:08 offers inside enlightenment rarely seen on this blog. If you are a recent retiree, I'm wondering if you would be bold enough to offer some candid observations about Gannett management and who you think is good at the corporate level.
Mick was issuing important marketing edicts tied to USA Today's economic future: a press release on young film producers.Simply amazing what these marketing geniuses waste their time on. If there is a point to this, please explain. Sandra, Maryam, anyone?
1:48. Yor are correct about how we who work for GCI, can no longer have faith in our managers/ Directors. They have cut to the bone with out passion for us, they have cut pay over the past 3 years in our furloug program, alonf with wage freese and massive layoffs. So please get down off you high horse and preach to a different choir. We all have had wnough, and if not for the bad economy half of us wold have been gone a long time ago. Gannett used to be the new org. that all wanted to work for...not anymore..The company sucks horse cock PERIOD
Hunke is on special projects until September. Ru,or has it he is in deep thought figuring out what colors the gallons should be at the 30th anniversary party. He was told he cannot hire a vice president to help in the decision making process.Banikarim is working on her autobiography. Confessions of the self absorbed.Frank is angling for a bigger office and better perks.Ellwood is looking at vacation homes and a free popcorn days with Orvil Redenbacher.Micek is busy scouting Cannes for 2013.
The persecution of those who were offered the buyout and didn't take it has begun. Watch for posts on this topic; stories of longtime employees with great track records getting nickeled and dimed it a veiled attempt to force them out.Call it: "Gannett's pogrom"
How much longer do we have to endure his chairmanshit Hunke until he "retires"?
Hunke, Ellwood, Micek and Frank were busy all week kissing Banikarim's ass. Just like last week. It's disgusting to watch.
Why would anyone pay homage to this woman who has done NOTHING for this company? Particularly Hunke and the even more clueless Heather Frank? Makes no sense. If this woman is a marketing genius, then I'm Albert Einstein.
It wasnt ice cream it was yogurt and I really licked it
Why? Why do I endure the behavior of an upper management team that has lost touch with reality?Nothing is ever good enough. I am rewarded by being spoke to as if I were a child or stupid. I am rewarded with far more duties than time to do it in. I am rewarded with little to no respect.
Right. Why DO you "endure the behavior"? If you're following the view never changes.
Thank you sir, may I have another?
This blog is a haven for crazies and malcontents.Good to see that topic being addressed. As someone else, there is no chance of a rational discussion of a serious issue here, even if I were willing to overlook the credibility problems of everyone here posting anonymously. (And just to nip the standard idiotic response in the bug -- yes, this is an anonymous post. Jim has proved, time and again, that he lacks the ability to moderate effectively, so I choose to never post with a name.)Every day, there should be a thread about how the malcontents and the crazies have polluted this blog.
10:08 You've just described yourself: A person who is dissatisfied and rebellious. In other words, a malcontent.In any case, please send me a link via e-mail to your blog about Gannett, so I can see how you moderate comments. I won't post the URL here unless you give me permission to do so.
11:07 Lavish vacations might refer to this recent example.
Great reporting Jim. How much incremental revenue was achieved by the trip earners? What was the net profit of the program? Was the VP's family with her to qualify for a "vacation"? Reinforcement that this is just a venue for personal bias, not journalism.
And your childhood photo is another reinforcement.
I doubt anyone outside the brains behind the trip knows the answer. do you want to take a stab? the trip's timing was lousy and the message it sends makes the rest of us feel pretty lousy. Tahiti. Cannes. Scotland. Japan?And not even a postcard?
11:38 I was simply taking a stab at what the poster meant when they wrote about lavish vacations.I don't have the answers to your questions, and I rather doubt that you have them, either.
Jim can't take the criticism, so he starts moderating. Weak.
12:37 More often than not, I moderate comments in advance on weekends, because invective often runs especially high during those periods.A small number of my readers tend to go overboard when they're posting on their home computers. These are folks who apparently are afraid to post from their work computers.
Maryam's next On the Road missive will feature the ice cream social that was the newsroom event of the year.
6:00,Perhaps the next one will be called, "On the Rocky Road."
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