Anonymous@6:13 p.m.: "Tara is much more of a pragmatist and leader than you are giving her credit for. Yes, she's loyal to Gannett and its leadership, but she's also a voice of reason in that group, as well. I am no longer with the company, but I know Tara as someone who is not afraid to speak her mind. And, when she does, it's generally in an eloquent and thoughtful manner. Throw leadership under the bus if you must, but don't throw Tara, too."Anonymous@10:45 p.m.: I feel Tara gets a bad rap on here and has far more backbone than a lot of editors currently in the newsroom. I think she also has a decent eye for talent. If you have skill and take some pride in what you do, you'd have no problem working for her. Lots of journalists end up in PR. I don't really hold that against her the way some do on here. And, just so you don't think I am a Gannett cheerleader, I hate this damn company! I just think there is a lot more wrong with it than Tara Connell. Bashing her constantly is really taking your eye off the many other problems that exist right under our noses.
[Image: today's front page, Newseum]
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteIt is nice to see Tara saying such nice things about herself. I work with her on occasion and I do not think she is that smart. She basically has other people do the thinking for her. If you asked people like Phil Curry, Kate M and Jennifer Carroll, you will hear how much they are frustrated by her lack of knowledge.
Tara is a perfectly fine corporate soldier. The disdain we have for her at USAT is not healthy. She is being set up to fail.
ReplyDeleteI like Tara (and she is not butch), but I do think she is in over her head in this new role.
Jim, what happened to "raising the level of professionalism of the blog," or whatever you posted yesterday about why you're deleting posts? The first two in this string have no place in any blog that aspires to be "professional." Surely you, of all people, can see that.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteI agree with 7:20 am. These post of Tara/person are very malicious and unprofessional on your part for posting....
I agree I on the first two posts. Let's be more professional.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteI too agree with 7:20 AM. If you allow this type of comment why do you delete other comments? Are you the sole judge of what is offensive to some and not to others? What is your criteria? You are not consistent.
Posts like 3:23 and 5:52 really impact the overall credibility of this blog. I can understand people venting, but personal attacks and name calling have no place in here, IMHFO.
ReplyDeleteI'm not in the upper corporate echelons, but I want informatively speak to the comment about "more backbone than most of the editors."
ReplyDeleteHello? The entire culture of Gannett produces editors who either put their heads down and do what they're told, or yell at their underlings as they pass along the orders. Ideas, initiative and accomplishments are ignored. Talented people are shunted to a back office. Are you telling me there's someone who actually speaks her mind? Glad to know there's someone somewhere.
"Please correct me if I'm wrong, but for all intensive purposes, I feel she's the 21st Century equivilent of Tokyo Rose."
ReplyDeleteYou're wrong, so I'll correct you. The correct phrase is "for all intents and purposes".
This discussion is in a way at the heart of whether this blog will ever be anything more than 10% interesting content and 90% childish chatter. Must it be true that everyone Dubow has contact with is incompetent or worse, demonic? What if Tara Connell is working hard to be both a Gannett spokesperson and a voice for the journalist? If she has his confidence, she may also be able to influence him. She is the one person with journalistic credentials who likely has frequent contact with him and yet we (many on the blog) wish to make her our enemy.
ReplyDelete8:42 you made my day! Thank you.
ReplyDeleteCall it a gut feeling, but I don't think TC is working to be a voice for the journalist. Judging by the statements distrbuted under her name, I'd say she's like any othr corporate flak.
ReplyDeletePut her in charge of advertorial? Hmmmmm. Put her in charge of news? No. Put her in charge of the gray matter in between? Dangerous and destructive.
Just me talking.
The first two comments in this post cross the line and hurt the credibility of this blog. It's why we aren't taken very seriously by some. I am all for blasting the company when it's deserved and for holding those in power accountable. But c'mon...grade school crap about sexual orientation does no one any good in addressing GCI's many ills.
ReplyDeleteAs for Tara. Yes, she has backbone. I agree entirely. More so than other editors who only do as they are told. She bucked the trend on occasion, ruffled some feathers, supported her people if they did the work, and got in trouble for it when at USAT. I always knew where I stood with Tara. Didn't have to pull any knives out of my back. I see that as honorable. Not many other others getting big editor salaries are willing to go against the grain, which is the single most profound problem at USAT. USAT's editors are the worst kind of bullies. They pick on people below them, but tremble in fear at anyone above them. They will not support their people if it means they might take some heat or it.
I had one editor tell me once that if it came down to him or one of his employees, he would always protect his own ass, regardless of whether it was the right or honorable thing to do or not. Nice, huh?
That's the kind of leadership USAT cultivates. So please, all this hysteria over Tara, someone who did challenge authority when it was the right thing to do, is far better than these slimy, two-faced editors we have now or have had in the past.
Tara laid it on the line, paid the price and came back in a new role. While most of us probably have issues with any PR people, I don't think that is reason enough to disqualify her from a job that gets her closer to what she did for most of her career. It's not like this building is filled with great editorial leadership.
I am sure that Jim has not seen those posts yet. They need to be deleted.
ReplyDelete9:17am...Hi Tara! You are so transparent you corporate flak.
ReplyDeleteThank you 8:42... that's one of my biggest annoyances. I'll never quite understand how some people can substitute "intensive" for "intents and."
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, all one has to possess to understand PR is that it is a whole-cloth creation of Edward Bernaise and his notion that propaganda can itself be spun to have a positive correlation in the minds of the masses if it were called something else. Hence, in the 1930's and 40's, propaganda became known as PR. But, that is another story for another time and place. Connell' weakness in the PR field is her fundamental lack of understanding of psychology.
There is a clear pattern in her pronouncements that suggests fear, or at least a great uneasiness about her.
I've often thought many of my fellow journalists could use a better understanding of psychology and its applications. Its usage could lead to better communication, but objectivity relegates it to the op-ed pages.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHow do anonymous posts reflect poorly upon Jim's blog? Is he not entitled to ignorant and abusive readers, just like any other entity?
ReplyDeleteI agree, these posts have no place in a legitimate discussion, however I feel that it should be a badge of honor to be the focus of Gannett's hate-baiting tactics. If you check the IP addresses that those hacks posted from, I'm sure they might lead you to McLean, or a surrounding community. The baseless attacks on Connell reak of a malevolent astroturfing campaign by Connell to sink the blog.
They are attacking you, Jim, by attacking themselves anonymously on your blog.
I am amazed -- but never surprised -- when 'journalists' are at the forefront of the mob that pleads for censorship.
ReplyDeleteThank you, 9:21 am, for being the only person in this string to consider the possibility that I do sleep now and then!
ReplyDeleteI've removed those two offending comments; please note the time stamps: 3:23 am and 5:52 am. Much as I'd like to moderate comments 24/7 (not!), bad comments do happen.
Tara has done nothing to open up lines of communication between corporate and the employees.
ReplyDeleteApparently, we need someone with a much stronger backbone.
Jim, I bet those people bitching about the negative comments that were there until you deleted them, are the SAME people who bitched about the comments not showing up until after you approved them. No-win, baby. I'd bet most of these whiners are folks who haven't thrown a few bucks your way either!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI am amazed -- but never surprised -- when 'journalists' are at the forefront of the mob that pleads for censorship.
3/05/2009 10:17 AM
Maybe we are not proposing censorship but to get rid of slanderous statements. There is a BIG difference.
One is against the law.
I agree with Jim. Tara Connell, regardless of her previous work for USAT, has for the last six years been this company's chief flack, trying to manipulate public perception and cover Corporate's ass. That's not journalism, no matter how you cut the cake.
ReplyDeleteIf she were to come out tomorrow, lay ContentOne on the table, and explain to all Gannett employees what it is and what it means and how it's going to affect them - that might win back a sliver of any respect I may have once had for her. A sliver.
But it sounds like a done deal, no matter what we say.
I just can't wait for Connell to be editing a story (as if! Do you think she'll really get her hands dirty?), come across a "no comment" from some corporate drone and ask the reporter or editor why they didn't get an actual answer.
"That's just your reply about Tucson," they should say, flip her the finger and walk away.
@10:25 - Tara's job is not communicating with the employees. That would be HR.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting how people who know the least seem to be the ones strongest in their opinions.
ReplyDeleteTara, a very good newswoman, was neither hero nor villain in her years at USAT, nor was her leaving anything more than a reflection of changes at the top. She could have stayed, as I've been led to understand it, but chose to leave. She left with her dignity fully intact.
Her talents for precision, integrity and good sense were seized upon by those who knew her on the corporate side.
For good or bad, she became Jim's kicking toy during this blog's birth and sometimes chaotic growth. She cooperated, or tried to, at first, but ended the "relationship" when things took an ugly turn -- "jokes" about female editors' appearances being the final straw.
Whether someone who worked on the PR side of things is forever banned from "returning" to the journalistic side of things is a legitimate question for debate. I see no problem, but if others do, then that should be factored in, I suppose.
And the question of what Content One is, exactly, is an even more legitimate question. Let the debate, or the questiosn, rage.
But Tara does not deserve the pilloring she has received here. Many spokespeople for many organizations are even less forthcoming. That does not excuse her silence on some matters, but at least it should be placed in context.
All the paranoid lunacies about Tara herself posting praise of herself -- the last thing she would ever do -- or the constant nastiness here really makes this blog look (sorry), pretty juvenile to any rational observer.
For certain, Jim is asking simple and direct questions that deserve simple and direct answers. But these are complicated times and Tara, for good or bad, is in a complicated position.
Gannett is not saying what ContentOne is yet because they don't know what it is yet. That's pretty lame, in truth, but that seems to be where they are.
For all that, Tara is someone who can be trusted to do her best, and most importantly, to know where the lines are and when they should not be crossed. Better her than many who we all could name.
She deserves better than the treatment she gets here. Even if she has not always been the blog's best friend, she would help make things better. And already has.
This from someone who knows.
2:26 pm: I do not know who you are, but I believe you are drawing the fullest, most complete profile of Tara Connell that I have seen yet. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteVery few Gannett executives and managers have strong, consistent supporters on this blog. (In fact, the only other one I can think of now is Chief Digital Officer Chris Saridakis.)
Now, suddenly, Connell has the biggest, and so far most persuasive circle of fans. If she is the journalist described by 2:26 pm and others in recent days, I am sorry I have not known her better. She sounds like the sort of person I would enjoy working with in a newsroom.
But we are not working together in a newsroom. I have not been working with Connell, the journalist. I've been working with Connell, as Corporate's chief publicist, the job she's chosen to hold for nearly six years now.
Publicists are not paid to be journalists. They are paid to present only those facts that reflect best on their employer. As Connell's defenders have said, Connell is merely the messenger, carrying a bad message, so please don't shoot her.
Well, I'm sorry, but: No. There's a reason publicists are known by a less-kind name, one reflecting what they're expected to take: flack.
Anon 2:26pm...Hi Tara. This is a nice glowing review of yourself.
ReplyDeleteTara is a very nice person, but she is an incompetent manager. Tara takes direction from Gracia Martore and Craig Dubow and has no original thought of her own.
As a publicist, she is not good. Can anyone point to anything that Corporate Communications has accomplished that has furthered Gannett's cause? Actually, does anyone actually know what her job description is?
Before we heap a bunch of praise on this fine manager, let's see if she is doing her current job well. First, let's define what that job is, because I am not sure her boss can actually explain what she does.
I do think there is some validity to Dubow and Martore muzzling her and preventing her from communicating with this blog. That is unfortunate, because she could have used this blog as another means to communicate to the employees. Even if that is HR's "job", most of us are shareholders too!
So, I would absolutely love to give Tara praise for who she is, but based on what she has done, I think we see the results in our she "communicates".
One other point on 2:26 pm's excellent observations. The reader writes: ". . . 'jokes' about female editors' appearances being the final straw.
ReplyDeleteI do not know what that refers to, but I believe this may be about comments posted by readers that I failed to remove from the blog quickly enough.
I have never myself made such comments about the appearances of female or male editors.
I wish those reader comments had not been published in the first place. I've taken steps since then, to patrol comment strings more aggressively.
Many spokespeople for many organizations are even less forthcoming. That does not excuse her silence on some matters, but at least it should be placed in context.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to be less forthcoming than "No comment."
The only context I'm placing her work in is the context of communicating what's happening at Gannett to the outside world. That world includes Gannett employees. (It's not HR's job to tell people what ContentOne is. It's not HR's job to address the ramifications of a newspaper's sale.)
And it's been a lousy, lousy job. One can debate whether it's Connell or Dubow or Matore who's calling the shots in those regards - but if Connell's advice is being disregarded, she should leave her job if she has half the integrity you ascribe to her.
I'm not one of those people who thinks people who leave journalism for PR should be barred from returning to journalism. But it's like the old tale about the preacher inviting the prostitute to his church... he'd welcome her as a member of the congregation, but probably wouldn't let her lead the choir the first day.
And for those of you who'll instantly misread that above paragraph, NO, I'm not comparing Tara Connell to a prostitute. It's just an example of why you might not hand the keys to the wine cellar to a recovering alcoholic, or the combination to the vault to a reformed bank robber. The same goes for putting the project that will allegedly save Gannett into the hands of someone who's been involved in spinning content, not journalism, for the last six years. Their judgment is highly questionable.
Don't we have something more interesting to talk about than this woman Tara. I give her credit for rising to these ranks as a woman. I don't know her from Adam, but hate to put down a woman in a corporate environment. Even in this day and age, Gannett still has the good ole' boy environment and I get tired of women being trashed like we did Hilary.For all we know Tara could run the company better than Craig. Give this woman a chance — because it appears the USA won't give a woman one. They finally are ok with a mixed race american as President, but women still haven't made the cut. I honestly think gay white men are more accepted then woman in this culture.
ReplyDelete