Thursday, January 16, 2014

Jan. 13-19 | 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.)

39 comments:

  1. Someone please put the Watch Dog in her place. The bit@$ is out of line in The Times news room.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have new responsibilities gone to Allison's head? Apparently yelling at reporters was news of the day yesterday.

      Delete
    2. C'mon man! :-)

      Delete
    3. Sounds like The Times is spinning out of control.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    5. Think someone has a very active imagination.

      Delete
  2. Been an avid reader of Gannett Blog since it began. However, since the massive layoffs have subsided, interest in the blog seems to have declined. It's good that folks aren't being thrown out like garbage by Gannett as frequently now, but I must admit that I kind of enjoyed all the light this blog shined on the evil empire when Gannett was at its worst and abandoning good employees, many of them in their 50s and 60s.

    In my opinion, Gannett has been one of the worst companies -- in big and subtle ways -- in America for decades. Not worst media companies. I mean worst companies in general, particularly as it relates to treatment of workers.

    Gannett managed to stay off the radar because, well, it controls a great deal of the media with it's local dailies, metro papers and USA Today. Plus, media companies don't exactly do investigative pieces on other media companies. It's sort of like doctors not ratting out other doctors. So for far too long, Gannett got away with treating employees badly without anyone but some industry insiders knowing of the poor working conditions at the largest newspaper chain in the country.

    Then the recession hit and Gannett got ugly in a more public way. Gannett Blog did a great job highlighting all the injustices. But the company rode out the storm. I suspect more people know what a lousy company Gannett is to work for now than they did 10 years ago, but most of those people are in the biz or in the j-schools. The public still doesn't demonize Gannett the way it does other corporation, even though Gannett is as ruthless and greedy as any company in the last 50 years.

    I left Gannett years ago. I loved journalism but hated not being able to sleep at night because of lack of ethics and integrity I saw on the inside. A lot of folks remain oblivious to those injustices, but because of this blog, more people have been made aware of Gannett's dirty little secrets. And that's a good thing for many reasons.

    I believe that karma will eventually catch up to Gannett. It may take another 10 years or longer, but Gannett will go into decline in a big way because it doesn't learn from past. It repackages itself every few years but doesn't make the substantive changes necessary to make it a more attractive place to talented employees who put personal and professional values over kissing ass and climbing the corporate ladder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Going all the way back to the Neuharth era, Gannett has operated under one prime directive: To identify, acquire and absorb other companies. Its culture is such that it isn't innovative enough to grow organically nor is it welcoming enough for the innovative people it acquires to hang around. The raison d'etre is solely to please Wall Street and institutional investors, not customers and certainly not employees, who are considered liabilities instead of assets. From one generation of management to the next, there is not a shred of focus on making Gannett a most admired company, a best place to work or an example of managerial excellence. It is not a "best" or "leading" anything. It is merely "big." The formula works for the moneychangers, GCI execs and GCI managers who have honed their survival tactics at the expense of personal integrity (if they ever had any). Executives, journalists and technologies with talent know better than to join such a terrible operation.

      Delete
    2. Gotta love the miserable ink-stained wretches who couldn't profitably run a lemonade stand, yet somehow have all the answers.

      Delete
    3. These "answers" come from management gurus like Peter Drucker and Tom Peters, as you should know. And as you also should know, executives of the most successful and most admired corporations pay big money for personal consultations with the Druckers and Peterses of the world.

      Delete
    4. You can tell 8:43 is one of the wretches with all the answers because of the "guru" reference. Only overblown, self-important journalists use that term regularly.

      Delete
    5. Guru is easier to type than "management consultant," you dolt. Call them what you want. Their advice is highly sought and prized.

      Delete
    6. There he goes again with all the answers.

      Delete
    7. It's called common knowledge. Gannett clearly chooses gulag management techniques than any 21st century enlightenment. And because you enjoy prison guard perks, you don't question the intentions of your masters.

      Delete
    8. Drucker departed this life in A.D. 2005. But yeah, no doubt he's still avidly sought after.

      Delete
    9. Are you high enough in Gannett to know about management by objectives? Gannett, as we know all too well, loves to show it is an avid practitioner of MBOs. And who came up with the idea of MBOs? Peter Drucker. He was one of the early writers about the information society and he coined the phrase "information worker." Gannett has made a total mockery of the teachings of this great man.

      Delete
  3. Is/has there been any talk concerning a spouse/partner of a Gannett employee who is currently covered by Gannett's Medical program via his/her spouse/partner who works for Gannett being dropped and needing to buy Medical insurance from their company as their "1st" source of Medical insurance? In 2005 a paper went forward with a policy that if a spouse/partner had insurance at their place of work, but was currently covered by his/her spouse/partner medical insurance at that paper would be dropped and would need to pick up a policy with their employer as their main coverage and would not be covered by that paper's insurance. My question is: Will Gannett force a spouse/partner who has access to their own Medical insurance through their company (not Gannett) be forced to buy a policy through their company and be dropped from Gannett's medical insurance. Hope this makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My first question would be how bad would the coverage at the other employer have to be that you would want Gannett's coverage?

      Delete
  4. The idea is simple, and widespread. Companies are unwilling to subsidize coverage for a spouse, especially one who works for another company which ought to subsidize coverage for its own employees. Nothing terribly unreasonable about that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If I understand your question correctly 7:44 pm, the answer is, that if your spouse has access to benefits at her job, and yet you choose to cover her under the Gannett plan, Gannett will charge you a surcharge. I believe it is either $150 bi-weekly or $150 a month. Of that I'm not quite sure. Maybe someone can clarify that. I hope I was able to be of some help.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey, Ms. Publisher ... It's called "customer parking" for a reason. Move your red Caddy taking up two spaces!

    ReplyDelete
  7. City of Cincinnati was voted the unhappiest place to work by the blog Career Bliss. My guess is 99% of the people that responded to there survey work for the Cincinnati Enquirer. Congrats Cincy!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. 11:07, Gannett was in the forefront of voluntarily stepping up and expanding its coverage beyond spouses to include shack-ups.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't believe they include shack-ups anymore. Correct me if I'm wrong.

      Delete
  9. Did anyone listen to the blah-blah-blah town hall meeting today? It was background noise in our newsroom but everyone was too busy to gather 'round the big screen.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Town Hall USCP with Dickey and others did not generate any excitement in our place. Interesting comment from Marymont about reporters should be "audience obsessed," though screen said "audience focused."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kate Marymont once was a focused journalist, relentless in covering the news and serving the audience. Now she is obsessed, but her obsession doesn't have anything to do with journalism. Sad.

      Delete
  14. Florida Today soon to get their "butterfly" as it's called here starting the end of the month. Wonder how it will sell when people have been already complaining about the amount of USA content in their local paper so what does Gannett do? Add more. Can't wait to see the price go up for the "added" pages/content. That ought to make 'em happy.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Good to know Kate is still around. didn't realize she still worked there.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Most comment on USA Today has been positive from where I sit. Wish it meant more local reporters.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Beusse, gone. heather Frank, gone. Neidermeir & friends, unfortunately, still here. When is Delta House gonna fight back?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. they have to get off of double secret probation first

      Delete
  18. Martore's ought to take a page from Marissa Meyer's play book. She canned her hand picked COO after a year of non performance.

    Why are Banikarim and Payne still around? They've had plenty more time to produce, yet continue to fail.

    ReplyDelete
  19. They are around because Gracia wants to save face.

    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.