An independent journal about the Gannett Co. and the news industry's digital transition
Seven comments, three removed in nearly 48 hours.For a long time, Jim, I thought you were actually fighting the machine, afflicting the powerful, etc. But since you've gone on medical leave pro, con and neutral comments have bottomed out. That's not something you can postulate is the effect of a holiday weekend, summer doldrums, or the weather. Several times this year there has been periods of little to no 'official' posting under your identity, where the commentary was still robust. Even accounting for time delay due to reviewing comments in advance, the comment traffic does not square with recent history.It seems entirely likely that much of the comment traffic here is 'astroturf' - fake grassroots comments ginned up by the blog owner to court page views or whatever other goals you might have. With the blog owner residing on the 'physically unable to perform' list, it's logical to assume that much of the action on the field depended on him, absent any other logical explanations.Even if the medical leave reasons have dissipated, the huge piece you just posted would also explain your absence from anonymous comments. People only can type so fast.I have no doubt that in the early years of Gannett Blog there was a groundswell of voices from the field, nor do I doubt that there are many people who still do contribute and read because they believe in the idea. I don't even fault you for seeding conversations with anonymous comments, if you have. In a new arena, there may be new rules.But what I would have a problem with is astroturfing the bigoted and hateful comments with regard to other readers' motivations, and sexual orientation in general. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if those had been legitimate posts from opinionated individuals in the wide world, their offerings would have continued unabated with your keyboard sabbatical.This hasn't been the case. What's the purpose of this treatise? Definitely not to get a response, as asking someone to prove a negative is a waste of time. Rather this is a warning to the naive, like myself, who would like to believe the intentions and methods of others are really known only to them - and that trust in general should only be conferred on those who deserve it.
Said it before, and I'll say it again: I've never posted comments anonymously.Comment flow rises and falls based on one factor: news. I can see already that you don't want to believe it, but every year at this time, traffic dips from the start of Thanksgiving week until Jan. 2.
Jim definitely maintains a couple of those anonymous personas. I don't think he is deranged enough to create the attack posts, but I have long suspected he has been behind some of the sycophantic support posts and possibly the never-missed "I started my own business and it grosses six figures" claims.The posts about what Jim ate for breakfast and the "stomping ground" silliness are likely original material from someone with codependency issues -- probably someone Jim knows. Some of the others, though, are clearly his own work, doctored slightly.His passionate defense of the "My business grew!" posts was a useless endeavor, and the length of that defense showed he was behind at least part of it. When the criticism showed no sign of subsiding, Jim finally gave in, and then those posts slowed to a trickle.
Wow, 4:21 p.m., sure has an interesting point of view. The facts are pretty simple. Jim began the blog in 2007. It's his blog. The rules are his. Start your own blog if you disagree with his management, and you obviously do. I'm no sycophant. I'm just a long-time employee who thinks Jim has done a wonderful job of keeping us informed about the doings of an otherwise Kremlin-like corporation. I do disagree with Jim about one thing: He's too nice to the ranters and conspiracy theorists. I would delete all of that nonsense, so the adults here can go about our business.
By your same elements of proof, 4:21, I could argue that you're Craig Dubow.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
And you spotted Jim on the grassy knoll in '63. Back to reality. 2014 should be interesting for Gannett and the media world. Look for reduced (or no?) print days and home delivery days as it transitions more and more to digital.
There isn't much reality here. There hasn't been for some time.For example, look at how quick Jim was to eliminate the posts questioning some of the recent rumors here. A good blogger wanting to preserve credibility would have supported those calls for proof.
The more a paper goes digital in lieu of print, the less profitable it will be.
I think Jim only has one, maybe two critics, but they keep posting.over and over.
I don't know the identities of individual posters on my blog; only Google has that information because it owns the Blogger software platform I use.However, Google Analytics tells me I average 15,000 monthly unique visitors -- a number that occasionally jumps with news developments, as it did in August, when it rose to 35,000 during a round of layoffs.I suspect that only a fraction of those visitors ever post comments, a pattern you'd find on almost any website. But it's more than a few. After all, during the past 12 months, readers here have posted nearly 16,000 comments.
But you do know the locations of posters, right? Your Google software shows you the IP and basic location of every comment submitted. I've used the blogspot platform, and it shows IP addresses with submitted comments, revealing location. Correct?
In my case, that's 100% incorrect.I've said this countless times before, but it never hurts to reiterate this: I have never been interesting in seeing specific IP addresses for posters to this blog. Ive never tried to find those addresses and I never will.
Keep it in your pants, 12:50. Jim doesn't even know what an IP address is. He probably thinks it's a phone number.So Jim won't be paying you a surprise visit any time soon.
Many would be be unable to comment at all if they could be identified.
Jim, do you keep a file of posts, that you delete?
Yes, Richard; I do.
Why? Just wondering.
It's not something I do deliberately. It happens because every time someone posts a comment, the Blogger software I use sends me an e-mail with the text of the comment.The e-mail goes to my gmail account, where all e-mails are kept for ever unless you take extra steps to delete them. And I don't do that.Having this e-mail archive is occasionally useful, as when a reader says they are trying to find a comment that doesn't turn up using the "Search Gannett Blot, etc." box in the green sidebar on the right side of my blog's homepage.
In the last string a reader asked for the names of the Digital content companies making money. That really is a great question. What are the names of the top ten digital companies with legitimate journalists and newsrooms that generate over one million dollars a year?
Assuming you mean actual, bonafide, standalone, EBITDA, that would be a null set.
Gannett doesn't have a prayer. Belo will eat them alive when they get control. They are already in the ranks and Gannett (or those with "the paper") are going to find their place irrelevant.
The Gannett Borg will eliminate all threat in the name of cost efficiency. We already have plenty of Ron Burgundy types. And anyone percieved as bright, smart or questioning will be sidetracked. The Gannett way.
Ron Burgundy doesn't commit the ultimate show-biz sin: He's not boring.
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