The article details ongoing labor disputes at Gannett, including chronic union-busting, delayed contract negotiations, and adverse impacts from automation and AI policy changes. These practices undermine worker rights and fair labor practices, which are central to critiques of corporate complicity in supporting authoritarian and exploitative systems.

Unionized Gannett journalists in NJ overwhelmingly authorize walkout

Gannett’s decision to eliminate national presidential endorsements reflects an attempt to depoliticize its platform and focus on centrist, factual reporting. This move is seen as an effort to reduce overt corporate influence in national politics, aligning more closely with democratic values and anti-fascist principles by avoiding partisan alignments. However, criticism from former journalists calling it a 'gag order' underscores concerns that this self-censorship may also limit necessary media scrutiny and diversity of political discourse.

Gannett executive defends company’s decision to end presidential endorsements

By choosing not to endorse a presidential candidate, Gannett distances its corporate media influence from national partisan politics. This editorial stance supports local democratic discourse, reducing the risk of centralized media platforms being co-opted to serve authoritarian ends. Although the decision is editorial rather than a direct corporate political maneuver, it reflects a deliberate effort to prevent the consolidation of power that could otherwise aid authoritarian agendas.

Chain of More Than 200 Papers Won't Make Presidential Endorsement

Gannett's decision to refrain from endorsing a presidential candidate reflects its effort to maintain political neutrality and avoid contributing to polarized, partisan agendas. This move is viewed positively from an anti-fascist perspective because it minimizes the risk of the media being used to propagate authoritarian narratives and reinforces the importance of local issues over manipulated national politics.

Gannett-owned USA Today won't endorse presidential candidate

Gannett's move to avoid national presidential endorsements represents a proactive stance to maintain editorial neutrality and reduce the risk of corporate influence in national political discourse. By prioritizing local coverage and facts over partisan endorsements, the company undermines strategies that could lend support to authoritarian figures and tactics. This action aligns with efforts to hold media organizations accountable for not propagating partisan propaganda.

America’s largest newspaper chain, including USA Today, won’t endorse in 2024 presidential race

Gannett's 2020 diversity policy, which aims to better mirror the demographics of the communities it serves, is designed to rectify longstanding representation disparities in the media industry. Although a lawsuit alleges that these policies lead to reverse discrimination against non-minority (white) employees, from an anti-fascist and progressive standpoint, the policy is a necessary step to dismantle systemic inequities and promote social justice. The legal challenge appears to be motivated by reactionary forces intent on undermining progressive DEI measures.

Gannett sued for alleged 'discrimination against non-minorities'

Gannett's 2020 inclusion quota policy, which allegedly led to reverse race discrimination by favoring minority candidates over non-minorities regardless of qualifications, represents a problematic business practice that undermines ethical responsibility and fair labor practices. From an anti-fascist perspective that champions equitable treatment and transparency in corporate practices, such discriminatory policies are seen as contributing to the erosion of fair, accountable, and inclusive workplace standards.

Gannett Hit With Class Action Over 'Reverse Race Discrimination'

The strike underscores severe issues in labor relations and human rights practices at Gannett. The mass layoffs, drastic newsroom staffing cuts, and union pushback indicate a disregard for employee welfare, contributing to an environment of exploitation. Such practices erode workers’ rights and can inadvertently bolster authoritarian tendencies by undermining democratic worker representation and community accountability.

Hundreds of journalists strike to demand leadership change at biggest US newspaper chain

The planned walkout, driven by significant layoffs and budget cuts, reflects a deterioration in labor relations and human rights practices at Gannett. Workers are protesting cost management initiatives and executive decisions perceived to undermine their job security and fair treatment. This event underscores the company's failure in upholding ethical labor practices, thereby contributing to a broader pattern of corporate practices that may indirectly support authoritarian dynamics by undermining worker rights.

Journalists at the country's largest newspaper chain will walk off the job