1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Worst company to work for

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!, Jul 6, 2006.


What's the worst newspaper chain to work for?

  1. Boone

    3 vote(s)
  2. Brown

    2 vote(s)
  3. CNHI

    13 vote(s)
  4. Copley

    1 vote(s)
  5. Cox

    2 vote(s)
  6. Gannett

    29 vote(s)
  7. Heartland

    0 vote(s)
  8. Hearst

    4 vote(s)
  9. JRC

    29 vote(s)
  10. Knight-Ridder

    8 vote(s)
  11. McClatchy

    1 vote(s)
  12. Ogden

    10 vote(s)
  13. Patton

    2 vote(s)
  14. Tribune

    9 vote(s)
  15. Other

    37 vote(s)
  1. schrdp2002

    schrdp2002 Member

  2. Job Sisyphus

    Job Sisyphus New Member

    Boone is like JRC's retarded hillbilly cousin. Penny-pinching, backward, inbred idiots. They're dopey and dumb, but you don't get the feeling they are always motivated by sheer undistilled hate, such as flows from the Urinal of Infinity at Casa Jello-neck..

    For sheer venomous viciousness of spirit, nobody touches the Taliban of American Journalism.
  3. Bamadog

    Bamadog Well-Known Member

    95! 95! (coffee squirts through nose) 95! Jeez.....
  4. GuessWho

    GuessWho Active Member

    Given recent events, there might be some folks in Dallas who'd like to add Belo to the list.
  5. printdust

    printdust New Member

    I've talked with some people who thought Gannett was bad, until they were bought by CNHI. Lying is an art form...for the poster who mentioned that, he's accurate there. Pretty damn soon, their salary to revenue (as opposed to salary to expenses, which is what most companies do), will result in a building with a lot of good equipment, but no one to run it of any quality or morale because of the screw job they do with salaries.
    They're begging to return to Gannett's bosom. And I never thought I'd hear that on this board.
  6. Colton

    Colton Active Member

    Printdust: Have to agree completely, save for the equipment: We had dogshit at my shop.

    CNHI sucks goat balls (lamb chops?).
  7. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    I believe that was me.

    They don't care if they have any quality or morale. As long as they can find enough people in the community willing to take their shit wages, then fill in the other holes with whatever they can get, they're happy. They absolutely do not care about what kind of product they are putting out.
  8. lono

    lono Active Member

    Sorry, it's still JRC. :mad:
  9. luckyducky

    luckyducky Guest

    Another vote for Lee, about to let two (semi-decent) weekly papers disappear into nothingness because of inept management.

    While it's sad to see papers die, I am enjoying watching the carnage. The editor at one of the weeklies had it coming. Dumb b!tch.

    Alright, back to the thread...
  10. terrier

    terrier Well-Known Member

    The JRC sweatshop I left two years ago had Windows 95...and no full-time tech person (there was one shared by 3-5 papers). I'll bet the cost of Windows 98 is still too dauntng.
  11. WHA73

    WHA73 Guest

    Guess ME or 2000 is out of the question as well, especially since stock is now at an all time low of 8.21 hahhahahahha
  12. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    The pay isn't great ... but at least at my shop, they seem to want to put money in the product. The credit card thing is weird. We get them at a smaller paper, but the big boys in Richmond don't. They also have company cars for trips, we don't. Mileage is at .37 now; company laptops (which I don't use just because I like mine); credit cards for travel expenses; good benefits; I don't really have a lot of bad things to say about MG. My past experiences were with Pulitzer and Lee, which were, let's say, very CAREFUL with their money.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page