But at least she didn't sign a recall petition ... More Gannett hypocrisy

They were raked over the coals by people on here and I'm sure the Gannett blog, using hot-button phrases like "violating the first amendment", "not letting the employees vote," how the ethics code at Gannett was signed by employees "under duress," and when there was an explanatory column that ran in several papers, of "plagiarism". None of those terms were applied correctly, which hurts the argument in the first place.

And I'm still wondering why non-Gannett papers that had the exact same reaction in the Wisconsin recall petition situation are not held up to the same standards? Like SF says, it happens everywhere, even outside of Gannett.

 

The Wisconsin papers also had plenty of Facebook comments with the same ideas.

Which non-Gannett papers?

And all those comments you placed about me ... are true.

The employees were not allowed to participate in their First Amendment right to redress grievances with their government in spite of the company saying in their own ethics statement that they uphold the public's First Amendment rights.

And signing the agreement is under durress. If you're told, "Sign this or you're gone," what are you as an employee supposed to do?

And when a journalist writes something, it's supposed to be original thoughts. Even if corporate told them to write it, then they shouldn't have placed their by-line on it. It's taking another person's work and putting your name on it. A reader is going to think that is the writer's original thoughts.

 

The Madison paper, which I linked to in both of the threads about it, but that Lee paper somehow seemed to escape your scorn.

Not to rehash, but again ... the First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law abridging Freedom of Speech. It has nothing to do with a company prohibiting their employees from doing something like signing a petition.

And I'd encourage you to look up the legal definition of "under duress." It doesn't fit what you're trying to make it fit, unless there was a gun pointed at the heads of the employees being forced to sign that document. What is the employee supposed to do? Decide which is more important, keeping their job or following the ethical guidelines.

Is it not possible that the 3 (or however-many) editors worked together to write that explanation piece, knowing it would run under their bylines in each of their papers? It probably should have a shared byline on it, but to call it plagiarism is a pretty big stretch.

As a former Gannetteer, I'm sure we share many of the same thoughts about that company. In fact, it was some of my questioning of that ethical guidelines thing and how it relates to our dealings with advertisers that, coincidentally, led to me being subtly encouraged to look elsewhere for employment. But that company gives itself enough rope to hang itself without people trotting out buzzwords that simply don't apply in an effort to get people riled up.