An independent journal about the Gannett Co. and the news industry's digital transition
How is your week ahead looking?
Jim, what are you hearing about the Montgomery publisher? Sam Martin has been gone since April 8 (10 weeks or 70 days). I know Scott LaFuria is Interim, but that seems like a long time to go without a fulltime pub.....
Let me see what I can find out.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bill Cronin was hired by Sandra Micek, not David L. Hunke. You can hang any number of bad VP hires on Hunke but not this one, MB.
OK good to know that Hunke was not responsible for Cronin. Micek was just following his lead.
Micek does only what she is told to do by the head of usat marketing, Banikarim.
Newspapers are still the best way get the news if you value your privacy. Companies are monitoring when you read on a portable device and keeping track of what articles you are reading. Then it's available to the Government along with all your other personal information. They can also track what you are watching and when you are home by when you turn on the cable box to watch t.v.. Gannnett and other media companies know this and have been willingly going along even pushing customers toward digital so they and advertisers can know everything about you.
Oh yes, I can't wait to get my news 24 hours later. And no one would ever guess what newspapers I subscribe to because they're subscribers are kept secret. Just like Gannett, unless they can sell your name and address to any advertiser wanting to bombard you with direct mail and phone calls.
The people who say getting news 24 hours is a problem are missing my point. You don't have any reason to complain when some companies or the Government violate your privacy when you willingly give it up. People who say it doesn't matter to them if the government or anyone else knows what they are reading or doing all the time because they aren't doing anything wrong don't get it. They usually say it doesn't matter to them because they are doing nothing wrong. Let me explain to you that it doesn't matter whether you are doing something illegal or not if people think you are being investigated it can do irreparable harm to a persons image. That can effect your life in many ways including finding employment, friends, getting admitted to the school you wish to attend or finding a home. I don't expect many people will care about this until it happens to them or someone they know.
This is 1:06. Meant the people who say getting news 24 hours *later* is a problem are missing the point. By the way I do agree many stories on T.V. are old stories that are brought out as news sometimes weeks after they were first reported.
9:16 the point you make about them guessing what you subscribe to is different than knowing what article you are reading in that publication or what advertising is catching your eye. The fact is they will soon if not already be able to track you and know what you are thinking as you think it.
Another problem with not protecting privacy is that what were once reliable sources for stories go away. People become afraid to talk to reporters for fear of retaliation. I see it on this blog, comments like why are you posting anonymously? How many comments, post,and visitors would this blog have if it everyone had to publicly identify themselves?
1:06 PM, are exactly correct regarding the effect of being investigated for something you didn't do, certainly nothing illegal, and I want to back up your point. I was falsely accused and proven innocent, a victim of overzealous bullshit. TO THIS DAY, people still think of the incredible accusation, and they think of it as fact rather than allegation, and they do not think of the vindication that I was wrongly, so wrongly accused. But the accusation was BIG NEWS in my berg. But my being completely innocent of it, proven, showed up on Page 20 or something, just about the last page before the Classifieds, three paragraphs if I recall correctly. BTW: I certainly don't work in journalism, but I check out this blog to see how some old friends of mine who do are doing. It's amazing what you guys go through.
It is done in politics all the time. It is the seriousness of the accusation that is important. Whether or not the candidate actually did anything wrong is irrelevant. People react to the accusation. "You know, now that you mention it, he does look like a criminal."
I agree 3:56 p.m. They are the best way, but they lack the immediacy of the Internet. And that comes from someone raised on print. We are no longer a Tomorrow Morning Society when it comes to waiting for news. As in most aspects of life, we have become an Instant Gratificiation Society, meaning we want our news immediately. However, your point may turn some people from the Internet as they learn Big Brother is watching them.
Immediacy is broadcast and cable. The Internet isn't about immediacy - it's about everything.
What are you kidding. I see TV news on Gannett and other stations that are sometimes a week old...Old news works for Gannett and will continue to work for Gannett.
The newspaper Internet counterparts are superior ways to get your news, but they are wasting extensive expense packaging hefty journalism packages that are rare to receive many page views or have their real impact through online. A summary of a major investigative package does better online with links as supporting evidence rather than the overblown landing pages and flash presentations. There is a real miss here in wasted time. Yes, do the big packages for print, but don't dump them an online savvy editor to turn into online excess. Don't get me wrong, they still need the eye candy at one level, but it's the basics that make a difference. Cover: my friends/neighborhood, my local institutions, my church, my safety, my entertainment, my politics, my weekend and my education/job.Advertisers will buy ads when they believe the org - more than any numbers - is essential in the community, will get them results and is looking out for them (customer service and good relationships worth my time that make doing business fun).Want to make money and win? It's simple. Invest in the community the way we used to do.
Dream on. Marketers simply simply are not going to waste the kind of money on mass media that they used to, least of all print, still less local newspapers. Journalism ain't going to revive a broken business model. That train left the platform. Get over it.
As both a staff member and a consumer of the product, I'd rather wait for enough time to look into a story without speculation, rather than my site's policy of "I don't care if it's wrong, just get it on the damn Web!" That is a quote from one of the editors, and it makes me sick. This is of course back when there was some staffing.
Where's the "Like" button for 7:48's comments? Good analysis. I will add that until Gannett wises up and staffs the web properly it'll never be what it can be -- or should be. Most Gannett papers still have absolutely skeleton online staffs.
Interesting perspective from David Carr in the New York Times over the weekend regarding how traditional news organizations are finding it very challenging to break news - even in their own local areas - a place where Gannett has recently placed a $2.2B bet (or mistake, however you want to view it) in broadcast. Read the article and draw your own conclusions.Here are a few excerpts:"Traditional news organizations used to be free to break news — or not — in their backyard and on their chosen beats. Now they have to be looking over their shoulder — at everyone. And in virtually every aspect of culture, from business to technology to fashion, the big guys now compete with a range of Web sites that break their share of news through obsessiveness and hyperfocus.""The business disruption in the media world caused by the Internet has been well documented. But a monopoly on scoops, long a cherished franchise for established and muscular news organizations, is disappearing."http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/17/business/media/big-news-forges-its-own-path.html?_r=0
Gannett which is a media company that started as a Newspaper won't let comments be posted anonymously. They instead make everyone sign up for Facebook and sign in to post a comment. There are now t.v stations that refuse to investigate a story unless the source of the information identifies themselves to them. That means they have no protection from retaliation for coming forward. Instead the news isn't being reported. The result of this is an uninformed public. Companies like Gannett have no business reporting the news if they aren't going to support the first amendment.
"That means they have no protection from retaliation for coming forward. Instead the news isn't being reported. The result of this is an uninformed public." Perfectly said, 304. And it's part of larger problem. Or as Time Magazine's James Poniewoski put it (abeit in his personal appreciation of the late Michael Hastings): "You work for your readers, not for your sources."
"Immediacy" is sometimes the problem not the solution. When you look at how many critical errors are made by broadcast and Internet news, one can understand how the public is losing faith in the media.I left the newspaper industry a few years ago because it was clear to me that newsroom standards were being compromised in order to be the first, the loudest, the most obnoxious... To be immediate. Clicks were more important than facts. Interns were more valuable than seasoned newsroom professionals.I recognize that the newspaper industry is hurting. I accept the reality that many of the newsrooms at companies like Gannett are being taken over by people who are better at tweeting and hash-tagging than writing/editing. It is clear that the news industry executives are hoping that technology and not solid journalism principles will improve the bottom line.These executives are being short-sighted and penny wise but pound foolish in my opinion, but I got tired of fighting with 20somethings so I left the business with a heavy heart. That wasn't an easy decision, as I have ink in my veins, just as my father did.Ironically, I actually embrace technology, but not at the expense of getting a story right. I'm not one of those people who fears technology. In fact, I am pretty good with it. I just got tired of feeling like a dinosaur because I wanted to run a spell check on a story before posting it. I became bored with silly little graphics that had no substance but looked entertaining online.At first, I missed the business. I am a news junkie, so a newsroom is one of the most invigorating places for me to spend my days and nights. I kept up on the news and current events, even though I wasn't on a newspaper payroll. I did that for about a year. Then I noticed that the same sinking feeling I was getting on the inside was now appearing while on the outside. Just simply reading a newspaper online or in print became torturous. Holes a mile wide in stories. Ridiculous news judgment. Headlines that didn't make sense. Pictures and video that looked like they were taken on a smartphone by someone who with no photo journalism experience or training whatsoever. You name it, and it was going south, even at the nation's newspaper (is that what they still call USA Today?) Broadcast news was seemingly also spiraling downward. I'm sure Gannett has big plans to dumb down their TV stations and on-air anchors and reporters.Now, a few years out of the business, I won't even look at mainstream newspaper or news website. I won't turn on CNN or the local evening TV news. I have no faith whatsoever that what is written or aired is accurate, so why waste my time?When I do want to follow a story, I find niche publications that still seem to have some journalistic values. They are hard to find amongst all the noise, but worth the effort if you still believe the facts are important.I've read newspapers and magazines since I was kid. Forty years of rarely missing the 6 or 11 p.m. news came to an end when I simply got fed up with style trumping objectivity and accuracy. If I, a former news junkie, feel this way, I would imagine the general public is even less tolerant of the crap that companies like Gannett put out these days. News was my profession and I can't stomach it anymore.The only way I see journalism surviving is for it to become a non-profit entity. If the profit is taken out of the profession, we might actually get back to valuing creativity, objectivity and skillful reporting. If companies like Gannett ultimately win the battle to gain total control of how the news is presented, journalism will lose, as will the country as a whole.
4:19, thank you. I share your perspective, but you have presented it much more eloquently than I could have.Would you be willing to tell us which niche publications that you still read? I would like to check them out.
4:19 - I stopped reading at "amongst" because it made me realize I was reading historical fiction.
Then I guess you read pretty much the entire thing, didn't you? And, pray tell, how does that term make the post historical fiction?
4:19 I have stopped believing what I see on television news as I notice them putting out inaccurate information for the sake of getting breaking news. I have noticed many instances but the most recent ones that really stood out involved the Boston marathon attack. CNN lost most of their credibility. While CNN took the hit they all are doing it. Another thing I have noticed is local television anchors after a story is shown making comments about it. They show conservative or liberal bias all the time instead of at least trying to show they are unbiased. There is no Walter Cronkite today on T.V. I miss good journalism and that is just my observation as a news junkie.
I dropped TV news right about when they started using Biff and Bambi.
Noted for the record: Today in Reno, Nev., Kelly Ann Scott was promoted to executive editor of the Reno Gazette-Journal. Scott most recently was senior news editor overseeing watchdog and enterprise reporting.She succeeds Beryl Love, who left in May to become executive editor of the Gannett Global News Desk at Corporate.
Oh, and I notice the release also states they're taking an editor from sports and features, not exactly beefy areas, and making her "...content editor responsible for development and management of all content in news, sports, features, projects, breaking news, business and communities across all platforms of delivery." A sports and features editor. News content? Typical. Forgive my pessimism -- Lord knows why that occurred -- but look forward to more sports and puff-ball features. If that's possible.
The editor they took oversaw the sports and features departments, and she knows what she's doing. If they had to hire the executive editor in-house (and that was a mistake in my opinion), she was the one they should have picked. That said, the real problem is that they not only promoted someone to executive editor, they then promoted two other managers into larger management roles. So, they essentially boosted the salaries of three people, creating another layer of management at an organization that is already light on worker bees. Nobody will remember this when they cut budgets and lay people off in a year, but those cuts will be a direct result of moves like this.
Kind of a hot-headed personality they put in the executive editor role; a pretty questionable choice. Not surprising, but questionable.
USA Today has published an interview with three former NSA employees who praise Edward Snowden's leaks, corroborate his claims, and warn about unlawful government acts.For years, the three whistle-blowers had told anyone who would listen that the NSA collects huge swaths of communications data from U.S. citizens .. They had spent decades in the top ranks of the agency, designing and managing the very data collection systems they say have been turned against Americans.They blew the whistle in the way Snowden's critics suggest he should have done. Their method didn't get through to the members of Congress who are saying, in the wake of the Snowden leak, that they had no idea what was going on.
I am surprised that USA actually printed this story as it is not good for this administrationand the democrat party .You notice there were no other replies here.The democrats don't like to hear the truth that might damage their party, much less have it reported in newspapers or TV or internet.
There are no other replies because this blog is not about partisan politics.
Wonder what the mood in the Reno newsroom is like now?
Kelly is a wonderful person and a great news person. I'm sure they are happy. But way to try and stir the pot
There are plenty of people who feel differently, including myself an others I know. But you are certainly welcome to your opinion.
Then you must be a very unhappy, negative person. Is there anyone in management you like or do you just dislike anyone who is successful
1:11, you could take that post and copy it as a legitimate reply to many other posts here.
Uh, yeah, that's it 1:11. I don't agree with you, so I am an "unhappy, negative person." What is supposed to happen now? I suppose I am supposed to call you a lemming and a drinker of Kool-Aid.I imagine you will also be disappointed to learn that there are people I like in management and that many would consider me personally successful. So, no, I do not have a bone to pick with every manager, and I am certainly not someone who hates to see good things happen.Is it a requirement that I applaud every move that Gannett management makes?
"Is it a requirement that I applaud every move that Gannett management makes?" (4:45 PM)It was when I worked there. Hell, one time we were all made to wear buttons in support of some management move. Required. Any questions, one became a target. And the management move fell flat on its face, just some predicted. Predicted very quietly that is. I don't blame the survivors for keeping their heads down.
I've heard Gannett laid off a few reporters and eliminated the positions of every senior editor at The Daily News Journal in Murfreesboro. Anyone else heard anything?
I'm hearing that those positions were not eliminated. Just the people who were in those positions.
Looks like there is confirmation from the paper itself today. However, I don't see any senior editors mentioned. It looks like they eliminated some positions and made new positions.
Two senior editors gone, plus one who took a buyout offer. Three reporters axed. That leaves 5 reporters (for news, sports and lifestyles), 2 editors and 2 photographers for a 260,000 population county.
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.