Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Dec. 17-23 | Your News & Comments: Part 2

Can't find the right spot for your comment? Post it here, in this open forum. Real Time Comments: parked here, 24/7. (Earlier editions.)

53 comments:

  1. I liked my job at Gannett and did it well. I did it much better than how it is being done now. For those that say it is just a business decision and they had to make changes I say that is your opinion. Not all the changes they have made were necessary. They certainly weren't all wise decisions. I am not a happy to have lost my job at Gannett. I accepted low wages and didn't complain. Sure better things may be in my future but losing my job hurt both economically and personally. You could say Gannett didn't owe me my job. I could say I didn't owe them anything either but I still gave 110 percent effort everyday I worked there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry you lost your job. But you didn't give 110 percent. It's impossible. 100 percent is the most anyone can give.

      Delete
  2. I think there are quite a few like you. I was one of them. Gave my all to Gannett. And for what? To see the bozos running it into the ground now. Ugh.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can't find the URL to the Gannett website for employee discounts and I'm looking for Gannett's Sprint corporate ID so that I can receive the discount. Does anyone have that handy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have to wonder: Why on earth do people post questions like this here, asking information that is readily available on the corporate intranet?

      Delete
    2. I posted that because I am at home this week and don't have access to my office computer from home.

      Delete
    3. And because you are stupid. Don't forget that.

      Delete
    4. Dude, I'm way smarter than you'll be!

      Delete
  4. I can't help but wonder what is about to hit the fan in Gannett. All of a sudden, Corporate is on this feel good, look how compassionate we are, we've kept all our reporters bullshit bandwagon. They must have woken up and realized all the negativity out there is costing this company big dollars. Unfortunately for Gannett, I think there are more disgruntled people out there (customers included), than anyone who can say anything positive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the first day of Christmas, Gannett Blog gave to me:

      An anon's lame conspiracy!

      Delete
  5. I also gave Gannett my all for almost ten years, I was not fired nor pushed out. I left on my own because of new management.. It seems like the last 3 years at Gannet have been nothing more than trial and error decision making by upper management. NO one could agree on a unified plan for the company..... my father would have called this "to many chiefs".

    ReplyDelete
  6. My inner journalist cynic is trying to resist looking for Newtown media reports that start quoting psychologists on the need for national "closure." My industry colleagues will recognize that "healing," followed by "closure," signals editors are growing weary of a particular story.

    In his case, it should come around Saturday, after the obligatory one-week anniversary stories. Monday begins the week when many reporters and editors ease up on work as they attend holiday parties.

    TV and newspapers will be full of feel-good Christmas stories; holiday movie openings ("Les Misérables"!), and celebrities' predictions for 2013. What's next on Dancing With the Stars?!

    "We'll get back to Newtown after New Years," editors will promise. "We can do an update then."

    I really, really, really hope I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was a simple breather from the fiscal cliff story. We (Americans) are unable to follow more than one story at a time.

      For all the hand-wringing, this story is already old news as far as readers and watchers are concerned. Note the high number of people who said they were tuning out coverage - if it doesn't directly affect them, they've moved on.

      There probably will be an assault weapons ban, restrictions on magazines. Easy legislative wins that don't mean anything, really.

      But our national attention span has dwindled to that of goldfish, and giving the audience more unpleasant stories about the tragedy will only cause them to flit away faster.

      That stupid word closure? Already achieved for 99% of the American public.

      Delete
    2. Well, it took a lot less time than I thought. In the past 24 hours, we have had:

      From the Alaska Dispatch: "While the nation looks for a path forward, Alaskans on Monday night got a chance to mourn the lives lost, and perhaps bring some closure to their own grief."

      From the North Adams (Mass.) Transcript: People from all over Newtown, the state of Connecticut and the country have come to pay their respects. "When you have that amount of death, you need some closure. You need some healing, and you need to do something for these people," said Angela Salvatore.

      Delete
    3. Times like this show up the lamestream media at its worst: irrational, erroneous, and predictable.

      Delete
    4. You're exactly right Jim. Even editors who thrive on beating a dead horse will go away after the funerals, and as Christmas comes will want feel good stories. Only exceptions might be some tear jerkers on the survivors, or how Xmas will never be the same again in Newtown. Predictable as always.

      Delete
    5. And so what, exactly, is your coverage plan after a week? More "expert analysis" of the shooter and his family life? It's overload. Those directly affected by the tragedy are certainly not looking to the media for solace or answers, and those of us not directly affected by it can only take so much replay of events and analysis (speaking only for myself). It's not callous or unfeeling or disrespectful to the victims to say "enough." Nobody is obligated to grieve for more than an amount of time that is comfortable for them personally. What exactly is the purpose of more and more coverage after a point? If you want more, I'm sure there are bloggers and other pundits who will continue on for months about the implications of it, the gun control legislation that will follow, etc. But I'm not sure why we'd expect the MSM to do that.

      Delete
  7. Dicks Sporting Goods has just announced they are pulling all semi-automatics from their stores. A start in the right direction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cheaper Than Dirt (www.cheaperthandirt.com) have pulled all their firearms from their website, only selling parts, accessories and ammo.

      Delete
  8. 4:52
    You must not be from the midwest.
    Here, we take our 2nd amendment rights very seriously.
    We,the legal and licensed gun owners are stocking up on legal weapons and ammo as fast as we can afford to do so.
    Guns don't kill, mentally challenged people do.
    Never has a gun pulled it's own trigger to commit a crime and very,very few gun crimes are committed by licensed owners.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good to know that in addition to your daily calls for people to quit Gannett, you believe this nonsense, too.

      You're wrong about licensed owners. Many homicides occur in the home of the gun owner with the gun owner's gun.

      Don't come in here again with that lie.

      Delete
    2. Not exactly @6:51 as a quick look at crime data proves that 4:52 was correct in writing that “very, very few gun crimes are committed by licensed owners”.

      One 2009 Texas study shows that out of 65,651 gun-related violent crime convictions in that state, only 101 of the convictions were for people licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

      In other words, only 0.1541 percent. As such, one suspects that crimes committed by all licensed gun owners is equally as low across this nation.

      http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2009.pdf

      Delete
    3. You really picked a representative state there with Texas.

      I suspect you would find different numbers with a different state.

      Also, those "legally purchased" weapons become less legal -- one might say illegal -- once they are used for those violent crimes. Funny how your limited definition does not include that aspect.

      Delete
    4. No, what’s funny @7:19 is how you chose to take an opinionated shot at a study that was admittedly quickly chosen instead of providing a substantive study of your own to dispute it.

      And really, common sense alone easily suggests far more gun-related crimes are committed by non-licensed owners as few people are so stupid as to commit them with guns that could be more easily traced.

      Delete
    5. http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/userfiles/file/Children_and_Families/Guns.pdf

      There's your link. You need to read only the first graf.

      I await you salting and eating your words.

      Delete
  9. I need to add:
    And criminals commit gun crimes!

    ReplyDelete
  10. QUOTE We,the legal and licensed gun owners are stocking up on legal weapons and ammo as fast as we can afford to do so.
    Guns don't kill, mentally challenged people do.UNQUOTE

    Such as people who "are stocking up on legal weapons and ammo as fast as we can afford to do so.''

    Good luck with that. Sounds like a "smart" plan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do you feel a need to stock up? Seriously? How many assault rifles and extra capacity mags do you need?

      Delete
    2. 6:11 is fighting the enemies in his own mind. If you haven't noticed, he comes here 1-2 times every day to tell us how we are the enemy because we (actually you) have not quit Gannett yet.

      I fully expect this person to be a triggerman in the near future. I am concerned that this person is stocking up on weapons because he is definitely one of the mentally challenged people he claims to oppose.

      Delete
    3. new rule, tell all the crazy people who own guns that's it a new trend to shoot yourself first before you shoot the other people, that'll drop the number of senseless deaths.

      Delete
    4. it will also save the taxpayer the legal costs and cost to house them in prison for the rest of their lives.

      Delete
  11. So is all this why the states with strictest gun laws have the most crimes committed with guns.
    And the states with the most conceal and carry permit owners have the fewest gun crimes committed???
    Just check out Illinois and Chicago specifically,40 gun murders per month on average,and New York as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great point, all of which also begs the question regarding why Obama – who’s from Chicago, waited until now to act given what he knows about that city and others, including ten shootings that occurred there on the same day as Sandy Hook’s.

      Delete
    2. Skewed logic. People with CCW permits are generally older, male, and rural inhabitants.

      Thus, states with more CCW permits already had lower crime rates.

      Just to try to help you out -- you should compare crime rates in the same areas before and after CCW permits. I'd bet there is a small drop, but nothing like what you claim.

      Delete
  12. Quit gannett?Why would anyone want to quit Gannett. It's the best corporation in the country,maybe the world to work for.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sigh.

    My original intent was, as always, to spark a discussion about media coverage of a big national event, since this blog is about Gannett and the news industry.

    Having said that, I won't delete any of these gun-related posts because they're already off and running.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Charles Everett12/18/2012 9:01 PM

      The Newtown massacre is the latest example of what Alexander Cockburn called a "news spasm." Such events are "totalitarian in structure and intent, obsessively monopolistic of newsprint and the airwaves, forcing a 'national mood' or consensus in which rituals of grief and vengeance can be carried forward." Cockburn wrote those words in 1986 for The Nation magazine after the space shuttle Challenger exploded.

      The situation is complex but the response is simple: In a 500-channel universe the major media, sports leagues and celebrities all sing the same chorus whenever there's a "news spasm."

      Next time you hear the trite, hackneyed phrase "Our thoughts and prayers ..." reply with "Did you know them personally? Or are you saying that because everybody's doing it?"

      Delete
  14. I will bet criminals all over this country are just thrilled to death that we are once trying take more legal weapons out of the hands of law abiding gun owners.
    Let's just let the crooks rule the cities,towns and countryside.Do you think they care how many new gun laws are passed? They will still have theirs and do as they please without restraint.
    Because there sure as heck are not enough police to stop them all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, you're really on a roll. Usually you only comment once or twice about how stupid people are for not quitting their jobs at Gannett. Now you won't stop posting about how scared you are that they'll take away your guns. When you pick a topic you sure do beat it to death.

      Delete
    2. Hey I've got a great idea. Instead of eliminating guns, lets put more guns out there. Hell, if everybody had a gun we could just shoot each other instead of shaking hands.

      Gun fanatics are almost as bad as religious fanatics.

      Almost.

      Delete
  15. Once again the comments prove this blog is only of interest to the dead weight that was finally laid off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So sorry to hear you were laid off then, 8:04.

      Delete
  16. Conceal and carry permits have risen greatly among the younger crowd and women imparticularly.
    Statics across this land will reflect a huge just jump across all sectors.And as in Gannett terminology, in year over year comparions.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 8:04 once again shows the ultimate arrogance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And truth. Don't forget that.

      Delete
    2. You mean ignorance

      Delete
  18. Here is an op-ed piece that says the proliferation of weapons in the USA actually threaten the liberties that gun advocates says they are defending. Draw your own conclusions: opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/the-freedom-of-an-armed-society/?src=me&ref=general

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Utterly fatuous malarkey (naturally by a moonbat academic spouting Foucault and praising "Occupy" hooliganism).

      Rational people aren't threatened by peaceful, law-abiding citizens exercising a constitutional right.

      Delete
    2. You mean like the right to assemble peacefully? The right you just trashed as hooliganism?

      Gun people make it way too easy. They have been fortunate enough to have weak politicians on their side, but those days are coming to an end.

      Delete
    3. LOL. Not. Thank Zeus the average American is a more rational and reliable champion of liberty and constitutional rights than the feckless lamestream media.

      Delete
    4. 12:19 Reno dude glad to see your back. How is your black cat? Self righteous as ever I see.

      Delete
  19. Back in the day when I went bow deer hunting with my dad he asked why I was only carrying one arrow. I said you only get one shot at a deer anyhow so you have to make it count. Guess who got the deer. He would do the same during gun season he would take out his 30.30 Winchester which could get off several rounds and I would take a shotgun with three rounds of slugs. Guess again who got the deer.
    I don't own any guns today and wouldn't have them in my house. Uncle Sam took all the fun out of it for me.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Here's what I can say about this event. Yesterday I had the opportunity to visit my son's classroom during school to help with a class project. It's a first grade class- he's 6 years old.
    As I watched them all laughing and working on their projects, I could not help but think this was what the Sandy Hook School classrooms must have looked like just before the shooter entered their room.
    I had to leave the room and collect myself for several minutes in the hallway. No closure just yet.

    ReplyDelete

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.