Spirited News & Observations II -- NGE/Baxter

[WDW1974]

But this also explains the lack of accountability and the general decline of the company in many ways as well. If you get lazy types in the ranks, you get lazy product.

And that's just what it is. Lazy. You know, I can remember being a guest of corporate at events more than a decade ago and it just seemed like the events were there to justify the jobs of the CMs who dominated the list of attendees.... You can't grow that way.

So, I guess we bring in a whole new group. Not media. Not PR pros. We bring in uber fans and Mommy Bloggers who will say whatever Disney asks them to. End of story.

I wonder if my pal Crazy Gary will save a seat for me (and a swag bag and some room on his DREAMS, WISHES, MAGIC company Chase Visa) for me. I have been called a mother many, many times. Often, to be fair, by folks who work for Disney. So, ... as my pal (yes, he really is -- Angry Disney Nerd in Chi-Town) Ben Linus (the immortal, the transcadental, the great character actor Michael Emerson) would say to Jacob: ''What the EFF about me you crazy pseudo-Godlike figure that has a brother who turns into smoke whenever the mood strikes?''

If you are not a Lost fan, disregard the above. Just a fan and a friend, namedropping ...besides, my pal is now working with JC himself!

I don't have a point, other than...typical.

Your point says it all. Your post did. But I'm beginning to think a house cleaning isn't enough. We need to clear the foundation at Celebration Place and begin building anew. ... I'll let one current staffer stay ... but won't tell you who I would put on my team!

Incidentally, did I ever mention that I know a thing or 18,888 things about media? well, I do ...

 

[the.dreamfinder]

I wasted valuable vacation time to meet Lou a couple of years ago at one of his meet of the months. It was all about him, his show, and his stuff. When I got back home, I unsubscribed from his podcast and deleted the episodes that I had. He's living a charmed life that has got to crash around him at some point. I hope he can still practice law because Disney can be an expensive place for an unemployed blogger....

He does own a restaurant in Naples.

 

[WDW1974]

Theres a distinct difference. She was writing for The Lakeland Ledger, a newspaper owned by the NYT Regional Newspaper Group - not the NYT itself. For example, when you write for the Boston Globe, youre writing for them, not the NYT who happens to own the Globe.

Its straight up misrepresentation.

EXACTLY!!!

 

[lazyboy97o]

I havent seen the quote to which you're making reference to; I'm assuming you mean what was on her linkedin page and I'll address it that way.

Its my understanding that the checks came from NYTC so says my friends who work there.

My issue is that she has implied/inferred/misrepresented herself that she worked for NYT when she did not. Thats a hair that I wont split. She's intentionally misleading people by putting it that way and misrepresenting herself. How can anyone call themselves a journalist and be someone who intentionally misleads and misrepresents?

The quote posted here was a claim to work for "The New York Times Company," not The New York Times.

And you are splitting hairs unless you can just flatly say, "No, she did not work with or for The New York Times Company" without any qualifiers or invoking the paper itself.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Because it only works when people such as yourself jump to a specific not stated in the general.

I ask you this: When you see on someone's resume that they worked for The New York Times Company as a correspondent, what's your initial reaction? Mine is that they wrote for the NYT. Thats where my problem with it is.

I'll use myself for an example: I never considered nor put on a resume that I was an employee of Morris Communications; rather I was a photojournalist at the Athens Banner-Herald. (Morris owns the Florida Times-Union as well as the Augusta Chronicle and several other papers)

 

[PhotoDave219]

The quote posted here was a claim to work for "The New York Times Company," not The New York Times.

And you are splitting hairs unless you can just flatly say, "No, she did not work with or for The New York Times Company" without any qualifiers or invoking the paper itself.

I'm not going to argue this any further. If you feel that she's being honest in her dealings, good for you. I don't. My thoughts are above.

 

[WDW1974]

Maybe its just some norm I don't understand, but if one works for Walt Disney World I don't think it's misrepresentation to say one works for The Walt Disney Company when in reality there are subsidiaries like The Walt Disney World Company in between. The quote getting plastered here references The New York Times Company not The New York Times. Is the New York Times Regional Media Group not a wholly owned subsidiary of The New York Times Company?

I tend to think you are just misunderstanding the way the business works. I'm not really sure what example will turn the lightbulb on ... by the way, what has happened to @whylightbulb? I sorta miss him and since I'm about to spill on some UNI news, I wouldn't mind his input!

But anyway ... I think the WDC would disagree with your point. If every front-line CM (minimum wage) suddenly decided that they worked for The Walt Disney Studios. They don't. Just like if some intern at an ABC affiliate in Hicktown, GA claims to work for TWDC ...

If you work for ESPN in BRistol, you work for ESPN. That's what you would declare. You wouldn't say you worked for TWDC, even if it gave you added prestige.

Would you like to take this to the extreme? Let's say you are a veteran of our armed forces (sorry, it's 2:09 a.m. and I do have a baseball game to get ready for at 7 tomorrow night!), would you put on your Linkedin profile that you worked for the Prez of the USA? I think not.

It's taking a tenuous corporate connection THAT IS IMPROPER TO BEGIN WITH and extrapolating/bastardizing it beyond all reason.

The waiters at the Brown Derby don't work for The Walt Disney Studios.

 

[the.dreamfinder]

I'm not going to argue this any further. If you feel that she's being honest in her dealings, good for you. I don't. My thoughts are above.

Agreed, there's nothing more to discuss here.

 

[Bolna]

I ask you this: When you see on someone's resume that they worked for The New York Times Company as a correspondent, what's your initial reaction? Mine is that they wrote for the NYT. Thats where my problem with it is.

I'll use myself for an example: I never considered nor put on a resume that I was an employee of Morris Communications; rather I was a photojournalist at the Athens Banner-Herald. (Morris owns the Florida Times-Union as well as the Augusta Chronicle and several other papers)

I totally agree with your point, Dave (as well as with WDW1974), on this matter. To me the problem is that in the world of journalists, professional standing depends on where a journalist has been published. That is the info you expect therefore to read in a place like linkedin. If someone does not want to admit to have worked for a small regional paper, then they ought not put anything about this work in their profile. But if they do, they can't hide behind a company name which involves one of the best known papers in the world.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I ask you this: When you see on someone's resume that they worked for The New York Times Company as a correspondent, what's your initial reaction? Mine is that they wrote for the NYT. Thats where my problem with it is.

I'll use myself for an example: I never considered nor put on a resume that I was an employee of Morris Communications; rather I was a photojournalist at the Athens Banner-Herald. (Morris owns the Florida Times-Union as well as the Augusta Chronicle and several other papers)

I completely agree that the idea is to fluff up the position very much intended to use the namesake of the company but its still a different claim than what is being twisted. If I asked you, "Yes or no, have you ever worked for Morris Communications?" would I be right to call you a liar if you gave the simple "yes" answer?

I'm not going to argue this any further. If you feel that she's being honest in her dealings, good for you. I don't. My thoughts are above.

And another assumption. I see exactly what she was doing but it doesn't mean I can't see the same sort of twisting that is occurring here.

But anyway ... I think the WDC would disagree with your point. If every front-line CM (minimum wage) suddenly decided that they worked for The Walt Disney Studios. They don't. Just like if some intern at an ABC affiliate in Hicktown, GA claims to work for TWDC ...

Those are really poor examples. The Walt Disney Studios is completely outside the hierarchy that moves from The Walt Disney Company into Walt Disney Parks and Resorts through The Walt Disney World Company and to the front-line Cast Members. But this example is exactly what your doing right now. A Walt Disney World front-line Cast Member stating to have worked for The Walt Disney Company is not the same as a Walt Disney World front-line Cast Member stating to have worked for The Walt Disney Studios, the very sort of distinction you consistently fail to make when on one of your crusades.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Don't know much about him besides the fact he's with News Today, anyone care to catch me up on this?

Its an insanely long story that is honestly not worth bringing up, mostly because he goes ballistic any time his name is mentioned on this site. He says he's working on changing, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt because he's still a kid.

 

[WDW1974]

But that is not the claim. The claim is having worked with/for the common parent parent company, which is named for a specific part of the company. It may be disingenuous but I'm not seeing it as being any more so than what is happening here. She worked for one part but only mentioning the bigger whole and people say she is lying because they're doing the same, not distinguishing between the larger whole and its name-sake part.

Look, since you keep getting hooked on this one point instead of trying to figure out why some of realize the issue on the misrepping side, why don't we all just agree that what she did and continued to do until January was unethical and grounds for firing (not that you need any in the right to be screwed by your employer state of FLORIDUH!) and move on?

ANd one can only hope Jenn will polish that emebellished resume and move on to bigger and better lie-filled jobs later.

Did I mention she never actually worked for MTV either? ... why bother ...

 

[PhotoDave219]

I completely agree that the idea is to fluff up the position very much intended to use the namesake of the company but its still a different claim than what is being twisted. If I asked you, "Yes or no, have you ever worked for Morris Communications?" would I be right to call you a liar if you gave the simple "yes" answer?

I see your point but just answer me this: When someone says that they worked for The New York Times Company, who do you initially think they worked for off the bat?

Thats where the misrepresentation comes in IMO.

 

[WDW1974]

But again, the quote posted was not a claim to have worked for The New York Times. Yes or no, would you say she never worked with/for The New York Times Company?

C'mon, why so damn defensive of someone with some serious ethical and moral issues?

She worked for the publicist for TWDC at the same time she was writing for the Lakeland Ledger NOT the New York Times ... you need to get off this point. You are pulling wings off of flies at this point.

She shouldn't have been writing for ANY paper and she was trying (and still is) to make people believe she wrote for the NY Times, which she most definitely never did. But this is irrelevant. A publicist can not work as a journalist -- at the SAME time. I don't know how much more I (or Dave or anyone) can spell it out.

And you damn well know that saying you work for the NY Times is much different than saying you work for the Lakeland Ledger, which is where ALL OF HER CONTENT appeared.

UGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[WDW1974]

In journalism, misrepresentation is damming. We don't split hairs on technicalities. Its the same as lying. Especially if youre trying to suggest you worked for and were held to the same standards as the NYT.

How can you imply, infer or claim to have worked for the most prestigious newspaper in America with all the respect, prestige and ethical implications that come with it when in fact you've done nothing of the sort AND your behavior goes against everything that newspaper stands for.

Just read this and stop defending Blondie. She ain't that hot and she's married with child ... moreover, easily replaceable to TWDC.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Look, since you keep getting hooked on this one point instead of trying to figure out why some of realize the issue on the misrepping side, why don't we all just agree that what she did and continued to do until January was unethical and grounds for firing (not that you need any in the right to be screwed by your employer state of FLORIDUH!) and move on?

I'd likely fire the both of you right now. Her exactly you state, and you for the same misrepresentative manner in which you brought it to my attention.

I see your point but just answer me this: When someone says that they worked for The New York Times Company, who do you initially think they worked for off the bat?

Thats where the misrepresentation comes in IMO.

You're completely right but it does not excuse doing the exact thing in order to make the point. They're both sensationalism working off that same immediate connection between The New York Times Company and The New York Times. "She is not being honest because she worked for a small paper but says she worked for The New York Times Company" does not quite have the impact of the abstracted, assumption filled but just as misrepresenting statement "She is not being honest because she worked for a small paper but says she worked for The New York Times."

 

[lazyboy97o]

C'mon, why so damn defensive of someone with some serious ethical and moral issues?

She worked for the publicist for TWDC at the same time she was writing for the Lakeland Ledger NOT the New York Times ... you need to get off this point. You are pulling wings off of flies at this point.

She shouldn't have been writing for ANY paper and she was trying (and still is) to make people believe she wrote for the NY Times, which she most definitely never did. But this is irrelevant. A publicist can not work as a journalist -- at the SAME time. I don't know how much more I (or Dave or anyone) can spell it out.

And you damn well know that saying you work for the NY Times is much different than saying you work for the Lakeland Ledger, which is where ALL OF HER CONTENT appeared.

UGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just read this and stop defending Blondie. She ain't that hot and she's married with child ... moreover, easily replaceable to TWDC.

And once again you get called out on something so you try to make it a dichotomy.

 

[WDW1974]

He does own a restaurant in Naples.

Little known fact about Naples, FL : one of the top three places to relocate people in the Witness Protection Program.

Lou does look like he might make a decent lasagna and garlic rolls.

 

[WDW1974]

Agreed, there's nothing more to discuss here.

True ... but there will be this week.


Trust me!!!

 

[PhotoDave219]

You're completely right but it does not excuse doing the exact thing in order to make the point. They're both sensationalism working off that same immediate connection between The New York Times Company and The New York Times. "She is not being honest because she worked for a small paper but says she worked for The New York Times Company" does not quite have the impact of the abstracted, assumption filled but just as misrepresenting statement "She is not being honest because she worked for a small paper but says she worked for The New York Times."

I just dont draw that distinction and IMO the average person wouldn't either. IMO when the average person hears "The New York Times Company" they automatically assume the gray lady herself.

Like I said, I'm done arguing on this.