Gannett-anigans

I think what he did was ridiculously childish.

That said, ridiculously childish is not a fireable offense.

And the letter, while the company may deem it confidential, hardly has any company secrets in it. I consider it the equivilant of the guy showing his friends the letter. He just did it electronically. Childish? Yeah. Fireable? No.

Would you have fired the three women from USA Today for drawing in the dust of the blue ball?

 

Rhody has it right. I'm no fan of Gannett but that dude should have been happy he got the job instead of pulling a self-absorbed stunt. Hope he learns from it.

 

Oh, I don't know. I still like the fact that he didn't announce his new job "the same way everyone else in the world does."

And, of course he was doing it for attention. But that doesn't have to be a bad thing, especially on a blog. In fact, gaining and keeping attention/readers is the whole point of any blog.

What Brooks did may not have been the best thing from his new paper's point of view at the time -- although I'm willing to bet even it may think it overreacted a tad and may be having second thoughts about this firing at this point -- but he should not have been terminated over it.

If anything, his blogged "press release" might have led more people/eyeballs to check out his new paper.

 

Glad to know the folks posting here who think this is a firing offense never made a mistake in their younger days. I certainly NEVER did anything like this. :
Before you can be old and wise you need to be young and stupid. 99 percent of the Gannett managers might be "old" but they're not "wise." Guck Fannett.

 

What a weird thread. I can't believe anyone with half a heart would side with Gannett here. We have a young person with multiple degrees happy and proud to work at a newspaper. Let's have a little perspective. This a prime example of some corporate dipshit taking themselves way too seriously.

 

I did thinks early in my career that were arguably fireable offenses, and I got lucky.

Things are tougher and tighter today. There are easy replacements.

Our sports editor used ot being cases of beer in for post-football nights, either in the building or the parking garage.

Bet that doesn't happen much any more.


I do

 

If Mark Reynolds stays too long in the batter's box, he'll find out for himself, either through his teammates, or from a pitch to his head. He doesn't get put on waivers by the Orioles for it.

Merriman and Stevenson have penalty flags and technical fouls to tell them to cool it. They don't get dumped by their teams.

Being an arrogant asshole and a braggart isn't a fireable offense. Lord knows, we've all worked with people who have personality flaws. That doesn't mean they get fired, unless morale becomes so bad or the co-worker doesn't do their job. And even then, they get, or should get, some warnings.

 

I completely agree. This might have been a little arrogant and immature, but the dude got FIRED. That's killing an ant with a sledgehammer if that's all there is to it.

 

I'm not siding with Gannett; I'm just saying I get why they made the choice. For all we know, one of the people in charge saw the blog post and told someone they don't want a person that cocky coming into their newsroom.
He got screwed, but he made a choice and has to live with it. It's part of being an adult.

 

How old is this "kid"?

Also, can you say he was "fired" if he never started? I'd say they withdrew their job offer.

It was an over reaction by Gannett, but it was a really dumb move by the guy with the oddly spelled first name.

 

Good point.

 

Is the Wilmington paper still looking to fill this position or has it simply disappeared now that Brooks won't be going there?