An independent journal about the Gannett Co. and the news industry's digital transition
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
There's a bigger problem with Gannett which involves kissing up to powerful people. At WFMY in Greensboro, anchorwoman Tanya Rivera scripted an interview with a local policeman and submitted it to him for review prior to broadcast.I recall something similar at the Boise daily when it was owned by Gannett.
I think that overstates what happened. She was using a cop as an expert on a story about avoiding scams. What she did was TV's version of submitting questions in advance, a not uncommon step among print journalists. I think this happens often during these non-hostile interviews with experts where producers pre-interview to make sure someone knows their stuff before putting them in front of a camera -- especially for live shots.
No criticism of the lying liberal lamestream media shall be tolerated on this site, notwithstanding the reality that such criticism is very germane to the media's decline.
Your comment that I removed did not include so much as a gratuitous reference to Gannett. (And a gratuitous reference wouldn't cut it anyway.)I will let stand comments that make thoughtful reasoned and very specific remarks of a partisan political kind when they are focused on Gannett. But the general copy-and-paste "media won't criticize _________ candidate" doesn't wash.I can't let any of these threads get hijacked by off-topic, generic political debates. If you still want to waste your time going through the trouble of passing the anti-spam word verification in order to post your comment, go ahead.But I'll zap it as soon as I see it. Please take that stuff to blogs devoted to media and politics like Media Matters or Breitbart's Big Journalism.Remember: My blog, my rules. Don't like 'em? Start one of your own.
Jim, you were talking about gannett's lame social media efforts the other dsy. If you go on USA Today's web page and check out the handful of reporter profiles, half half been gone since the May buyout and Steve Jones died.
Jim still uses the same canned blogging software as he did when the blog started.
And it's wonderful because it's free, which makes it possible for users like you to read and post comments at no charge.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Wolff's column in USA Today is a real doozy. Via Romenesko link, here's a takedown: http://felixsalmon.tumblr.com/post/68041869430/michael-wolff-cant-do-arithmetic
Why can't they deliver the USA today. Not delivered 5 out of last 20 business days. They stink. Told me they would run todays issue out. Of course they did not. Awful customer service
Hi Jim, Hope you heal quickly and well. When you get back we should talk about the Detroit Media Partnership moving digital $$ that were earned in the 10th period to the 11th period, altering commissions.Also, funny thing yesterday at the DMP when the Senior Vice President of Advertising ordered lunch in for her and the managers, then management eating it in front of all of the rest of the staff. Don't worry they put the left overs out for the sales and support staff when they were finished.
Didn't know you were down, Jim, hope you get well soon....my lovely days at Gannett contributed to a heart attack before the age of 50....so I've never been so happy to be fired. But you get well quick, Jim, I enjoy the blog....you are always a step ahead of the white shirts and skirts at corporate....
Hahahahaha! Oh, shit, I laughed out loud at that. Jim is a step ahead of anyone not in a coma? Hahahaha! Make us laugh some more!
Boy, 10:16, ain't that the truth!Isn't it frustrating that we've all got to post comments on that Gannett Blog site that Corporate launched more than seven years ago?Too bad someone couldn't just once stay a step ahead of those high-paid smarty pants back at the Crystal Palace and take an idea out from under them!But no! Some crafty person at Corporate registered the domain name www.gannettblog.com back on April 21, 2006, and ran with the idea -- starting the site and keeping tight control over communications between employees ever since.It would indeed be LOL funny if it weren't so sad.
Try to keep it in your pants, Jim. I know Gannett had its own Web site long before you did. So you weren't a step ahead there.You're way behind in many other areas, too -- news, revenue, intelligence, tact, etc. I'd say that is LOL funny.
Do not post home address and phone numbers of Gannett employees, regardless of their rank.
Google search. Zillow bird's eye. You think this shit is secret?
Then let people use those services. I don't want to be a part of that.
We love your purity. Precious!
This isn't new. I've always drawn the line at comments that pose specific threats against employees at all levels, current and past.No names of young children. No home addresses or phone numbers. No photos of houses, and no maps showing their locations. No pleas that someone commit suicide or kill someone else. No joking about bringing weapons to work.I've seen all of those and more, and I've removed them all.
You are a STAR!
The posts about bringing weapons to work aren't jokes. There really are people who think they should have the right to do that.I'd categorize those people with a word, but then the post would be deleted.
Good for you Jim. Absolutely right.
Jim has done a tremendous job with this blog, since starting it at the time of the first big USA Today buyout. What puzzles me are the mean-spirited, homophobic, odd and often obscene posts that continue to pop up almost daily. What enjoyment do these people get from doing that? The posts, obviously, contribute nothing to the often important discussions on this blog. Jim is being high-minded by allowing some of the least-strange ones to get through. I am sure that most us feel sorry for these people. They seem to have so little else going for them.
11:42, I think the same thing about all the attack posts that also contribute nothing to the not-so-often important "discussions" that take place here. I notice you choose not to call those out specifically. (BTW, Jim allows those through far more frequently than your post would indicate. Maybe your true issue is with jim. You should clarify yourself.) That's a pity. It shows you to be a frightened person, ignorant of the facts.I feel sorry for not only those people, but also people like you who are too afraid to call out the really negative details.
Those folks who post those obscene characterizations of Jim's personal life and ethics, simply sink to the lowest possible denominator.When you run out of facts for a reasonable discussion, that is what you do. They are simply stirring the pot, and I for one, ignore them.
The Gannett asskissers are the one that post the anti-jim rants. Then they show them to their mommy and daddy. I mean, supervisors. Really pathetic, given how management treats its employees.
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.