Commitments Contingencies and Other Matters	9 Months Ended
Sep. 29, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters	Commitments, contingencies and other matters On June 12, 2013, Gannett entered into a merger agreement for the acquisition of Belo Corp. (Belo) for aggregate cash consideration of approximately $1.5 billion, in addition to the assumption of $715 million of existing Belo debt (the Merger). Belo is the owner of 20 television stations (nine in the top 25 U.S. markets) that reach more than 14% of U.S. television households, including ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW and MyNetwork TV (MNTV) affiliates and their associated websites. Belo also has three local and two regional news channels. Upon completion of the merger, Gannett will operate the fourth-largest English-language television station group in the United States, reaching nearly one-third of all U.S. households. The Merger will nearly double Gannett’s broadcast portfolio from 23 to 43 stations, including stations Gannett expects to service through shared services or similar arrangements. Upon completion of the Merger, Gannett will achieve greater geographic diversity, operating or servicing 21 stations in the top 25 U.S. markets. Gannett’s broadcast group will become the #1 CBS affiliate group, the #4 ABC affiliate group and will expand its already #1 NBC affiliate group position. In connection with the Merger, Gannett and Belo have planned, simultaneously with the consummation of the Merger, for a restructuring of certain of Belo’s media holdings in which their stations located in the Louisville, Kentucky; Phoenix, Arizona; Portland, Oregon; St. Louis, Missouri; and Tucson, Arizona television markets (the Assigned Stations) will be conveyed to third parties (the Restructuring and, together with the Merger, the Transaction). Gannett will enter into shared services and similar support arrangements with the third party owners of these stations. On August 22, 2013, the Company and Belo each received a request for additional information and documents (Second Requests) from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) pursuant to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended (HSR Act), in connection with the Merger. The Company and Belo are responding promptly to the Second Requests and continue working cooperatively with the DOJ as it conducts its review of the Merger. On September 25, 2013, the Belo shareholders approved the Merger agreement by more than 72% of the voting power of all outstanding shares entitled to vote. Closing of the Transaction will occur once all closing conditions have been satisfied, including the expiration or termination of any waiting period under the HSR Act and the grant by the Federal Communications Commission of its consent to the consummation of the Transaction (each of which has been impacted by the shutdown of the federal government in October 2013), the receipt of specified third party consents, and other customary closing conditions. The Company incurred expenses of $9.5 million and $4.4 million in the second and third quarters of 2013, respectively, related to the Merger which are included in the “Other non-operating items” line in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income. Since the announcement of the Company’s acquisition of Belo Corp. on June 13, 2013, Belo, Belo’s directors and the Company have been named as defendants in four substantively similar putative class action lawsuits brought by and on behalf of shareholders of Belo. The actions are: Jacob Hulsebus v. Belo Corp., et al., Cause No. DC-13-06601 (District Court of Dallas County, Texas), which was commenced on June 14, 2013 (the Hulsebus Case); IBEW Local 363 Pension Trust Fund, et al. v. Belo Corp., et al., Civil Action 8649-VCL (Delaware Chancery Court), which was commenced on June 17, 2013 (the IBEW Case); Oakland County Employees’ Retirement System v. Belo Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 8677-VCL (Delaware Chancery Court), which was commenced on June 24, 2013 (the Oakland Case); and Norfolk County Retirement System and Plymouth County Retirement System v. Judith L. Craven, et al., C.A. No. 8732-VCL (Delaware Chancery Court), which was commenced on July 16, 2013 (the Norfolk County Case). The IBEW Case, the Oakland Case and the Norfolk County Case have been consolidated into In re Belo Corp. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 8649-VCL (Delaware Chancery Court) (the Consolidated Delaware Case). The actions allege, among other things, that Belo’s directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger and that the Company aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The actions seek, among other things, to enjoin the Merger. In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the preliminary proxy statement filed by Belo in connection with the stockholders’ meeting to approve the Merger fails to provide all material information and/or provides misleading information to Belo’s stockholders. On September 30, 2013, the Consolidated Delaware Case was dismissed without prejudice as the plaintiffs in that case decided to go forward solely with the case in Texas and join the Texas action in order to pursue their claims in that court. In addition, on September 30, 2013, the parties to the Hulsebus Case entered into a Rule 11 Agreement pursuant to which the defendants to the Hulsebus Case have no obligation to respond to plaintiff’s petition until 30 days after plaintiff files its Second Amended Petition for breach of fiduciary duty. The Company believes these lawsuits are meritless and intends to vigorously defend all pending actions related to the Merger. The Company and a number of its subsidiaries also are defendants in other judicial and administrative proceedings involving matters incidental to their business. The Company’s management does not believe that any material liability will be imposed as a result of these matters.

Commitments, contingencies and other matters

On June 12, 2013, Gannett entered into a merger agreement for the acquisition of Belo Corp. (Belo) for aggregate cash consideration of approximately $1.5 billion, in addition to the assumption of $715 million of existing Belo debt (the Merger). Belo is the owner of 20 television stations (nine in the top 25 U.S. markets) that reach more than 14% of U.S. television households, including ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CW and MyNetwork TV (MNTV) affiliates and their associated websites. Belo also has three local and two regional news channels. Upon completion of the merger, Gannett will operate the fourth-largest English-language television station group in the United States, reaching nearly one-third of all U.S. households.

The Merger will nearly double Gannett’s broadcast portfolio from 23 to 43 stations, including stations Gannett expects to service through shared services or similar arrangements. Upon completion of the Merger, Gannett will achieve greater geographic diversity, operating or servicing 21 stations in the top 25 U.S. markets. Gannett’s broadcast group will become the #1 CBS affiliate group, the #4 ABC affiliate group and will expand its already #1 NBC affiliate group position. In connection with the Merger, Gannett and Belo have planned, simultaneously with the consummation of the Merger, for a restructuring of certain of Belo’s media holdings in which their stations located in the Louisville, Kentucky; Phoenix, Arizona; Portland, Oregon; St. Louis, Missouri; and Tucson, Arizona television markets (the Assigned Stations) will be conveyed to third parties (the Restructuring and, together with the Merger, the Transaction). Gannett will enter into shared services and similar support arrangements with the third party owners of these stations.

On August 22, 2013, the Company and Belo each received a request for additional information and documents (Second Requests) from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) pursuant to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, as amended (HSR Act), in connection with the Merger. The Company and Belo are responding promptly to the Second Requests and continue working cooperatively with the DOJ as it conducts its review of the Merger.

On September 25, 2013, the Belo shareholders approved the Merger agreement by more than 72% of the voting power of all outstanding shares entitled to vote. Closing of the Transaction will occur once all closing conditions have been satisfied, including the expiration or termination of any waiting period under the HSR Act and the grant by the Federal Communications Commission of its consent to the consummation of the Transaction (each of which has been impacted by the shutdown of the federal government in October 2013), the receipt of specified third party consents, and other customary closing conditions.

The Company incurred expenses of $9.5 million and $4.4 million in the second and third quarters of 2013, respectively, related to the Merger which are included in the “Other non-operating items” line in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income.

Since the announcement of the Company’s acquisition of Belo Corp. on June 13, 2013, Belo, Belo’s directors and the Company have been named as defendants in four substantively similar putative class action lawsuits brought by and on behalf of shareholders of Belo. The actions are: Jacob Hulsebus v. Belo Corp., et al., Cause No. DC-13-06601 (District Court of Dallas County, Texas), which was commenced on June 14, 2013 (the Hulsebus Case); IBEW Local 363 Pension Trust Fund, et al. v. Belo Corp., et al., Civil Action 8649-VCL (Delaware Chancery Court), which was commenced on June 17, 2013 (the IBEW Case); Oakland County Employees’ Retirement System v. Belo Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 8677-VCL (Delaware Chancery Court), which was commenced on June 24, 2013 (the Oakland Case); and Norfolk County Retirement System and Plymouth County Retirement System v. Judith L. Craven, et al., C.A. No. 8732-VCL (Delaware Chancery Court), which was commenced on July 16, 2013 (the Norfolk County Case). The IBEW Case, the Oakland Case and the Norfolk County Case have been consolidated into In re Belo Corp. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 8649-VCL (Delaware Chancery Court) (the Consolidated Delaware Case). The actions allege, among other things, that Belo’s directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger and that the Company aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The actions seek, among other things, to enjoin the Merger. In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the preliminary proxy statement filed by Belo in connection with the stockholders’ meeting to approve the Merger fails to provide all material information and/or provides misleading information to Belo’s stockholders. On September 30, 2013, the Consolidated Delaware Case was dismissed without prejudice as the plaintiffs in that case decided to go forward solely with the case in Texas and join the Texas action in order to pursue their claims in that court. In addition, on September 30, 2013, the parties to the Hulsebus Case entered into a Rule 11 Agreement pursuant to which the defendants to the Hulsebus Case have no obligation to respond to plaintiff’s petition until 30 days after plaintiff files its Second Amended Petition for breach of fiduciary duty. The Company believes these lawsuits are meritless and intends to vigorously defend all pending actions related to the Merger.

The Company and a number of its subsidiaries also are defendants in other judicial and administrative proceedings involving matters incidental to their business. The Company’s management does not believe that any material liability will be imposed as a result of these matters.