Gannett-anigans

[copperpot]

It's like someone said on the Romanesko link: It's not like he emailed this to the Times or Post. It was just a fun little way to update his friends and family on his own personal blog.

How'd it get on Romanesko in the first place? It was up there before he got fired. Did he send it to him for kicks?

I agree that firing him seems extreme. Also agree that the "Big Three" line sounded a little holier than thou.

 

[SF_Express]

It all goes back to my (perhaps unfortunately) new mantra: Risk/reward. It's cute; it's not worth the chance somebody at the new place will be sensitive or react negatively about it.

It's also the kind of thing a young person would do, and if I'm Gannett, I recognize that. Unfortunately ...

 

[WriteThinking]

While this was probably not the best way to go about announcing a career move from a straight-journalism standpoint, I do think a firing over this is way over the top.

Indeed, the approach -- particularly because it is on a personal blog -- is creative, original, different and interesting...i.e., exactly the kinds of things good editors always say they look for and want to see in reporters, especially these days.

The irony of this, though, is that the approach further blurs the line between straight journalism (which is what Brooks apparently got fired for not doing)and the way blogs are generally expected/hoped to be handled (which is what Brooks did well, especially if you understand that practically anything in terms of "sources" can be considered fair game these days).

This case points up a large part of the whole problem in this business right now. We want it both ways, and can't decide what to do, or what is best to do. The result is firings like this.

At root, journalism needs to figure out what it wants to be.

(I don't find the "Big Three" reference egotistical at all, if you keep in mind the news release/publicity approach Brooks was trying to take. It sounds exactly like a press release).

As for Sean Duff, I would be interested in knowing the thinking behind his not retaining a sports editor position he held for many years and in which he is proven.

 

[Stitch]

The fake release screams "I'm a hipster douchebag with a masters from NYU" I don't know Brooks, but that was my first impression after reading the blog.

As for the blog showing originality and creativity, that's the last thing Gannett higher-ups want. You just need to find an Asian or Afrrican American for a quote and you're gold in Gannettland.

 

[Balthier]

I don't give two shirts if it's cocky, don't care if it's hipster and/or douchebaggy.
fork Gannett for firing this guy over it.
And, frankly, fork anybody who agrees with what the company did.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

I must say, I'm slightly surprised by the firing. Because the guy is a minority, and Gannett for years has gone to extremes to tout their hirings and promotions of minorities. You'd have thought they'd give him the slightest benefit of the doubt.

But nope, just fire the guy after a week. Ridiculous. Call him in the office, tell him not to use the forking logo and quote the editor on his blog again, and move on with putting out the paper.

Yet another embarrassment for a Gannett paper.

 

[FileNotFound]

But nope, just fire the guy after a week. Ridiculous. Call him in the office, tell him not to use the forking logo and quote the editor on his blog again, and move on with putting out the paper.

Not defending The Evil Gannettoids at all, but do we know that's NOT how it went down and the kid, for whatever reason, refused? I share the surprise that a Gannett paper -- or, frankly, any paper -- would let go of a young, apparently smart and talented (and probably relatively inexpensive) multimedia content generator over something so relatively trivial and teachable.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

But nope, just fire the guy after a week. Ridiculous. Call him in the office, tell him not to use the forking logo and quote the editor on his blog again, and move on with putting out the paper.

Not defending The Evil Gannettoids at all, but do we know that's NOT how it went down and the kid, for whatever reason, refused? I share the surprise that a Gannett paper -- or, frankly, any paper -- would let go of a young, apparently smart and talented (and probably relatively inexpensive) multimedia content generator over something so relatively trivial and teachable.

If the kid was threatened with being fired and refused for taking down the logo, then he's stupid. The logo is (I assume) a trademarked item.

If they were upset over the actual contents (except the quote of the editor), then they really have some issues with themselves. Namely, their own Principles of Ethics, which state that they will uphold the public's First Amendment rights. The guy is a member of the public.

But, when you think about it, this is par for the course for Gannett. After all, USAT once fired three staffers for drawing "Kilroy was here" in the dust of a blue ball sculpture in a hallway.

 

[FileNotFound]

I had forgotten to take the Blue Ball thing into account. My scenario becomes a bit less likely when you consider that.

 

[Moderator1]

Is the guy in Ft. Collins really gone? Has that been answered and I missed it?

 

[MileHigh]

Is the guy in Ft. Collins really gone? Has that been answered and I missed it?

It has not been answered. He wrote a column two days ago and his tagline listed him as the sports editor.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

There are buyouts going on at most of the Gannett papers right now.

I am under the impression that they aren't forcing people out, but I think a lot of us have heard the "This offer might not be so good a few months from now..." conversations...