But note again that I said “some grammarians” would make the distinction between a gerund (a verbal noun), which cannot take an object, and a gerundive (a verbal adjective), which can. Others use “gerund” for both. I’m not sure that I think the distinction matters a whit; what matters is that one be able to identify when a participle is acting as a noun (in which case it can take a possessive form) and when it is either an adjective or simply part of a progressive verb construction.

Main Entry: ger·und
Pronunciation: \ˈjer-ənd, ˈje-rənd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin gerundium, from Latin gerundus, gerundive of gerere to bear, carry on
Date: 1513

1 : a verbal noun in Latin that expresses generalized or uncompleted action
2 : any of several linguistic forms analogous to the Latin gerund in languages other than Latin; especially : the English verbal noun ending in -ing that has the function of a substantive and at the same time shows the verbal features of tense, voice, and capacity to take adverbial qualifiers and to govern objects

“For new companies’ effort to get the word out, there’s a healthy measure of liberation in all of this.”

(There’s a healthy measure of liberation in all this for new companies’ efforts? No, it’s for the companies [the ones who are "trying to get the word out"], not for their efforts.)

“…because journalists would rather hear stories directly from the entrepreneurs who are genuinely excited about their companies — rather than from publicists’ deception— the role of publicists becomes less crucial.”

(Hearing stories from the publicists’ deception? No, it’s from the publicists who are “faking excitement.”)

In other words, to say that a noun could substitute for the participle in either case is to ignore semantics and to create antecedent-reference problems.

In talking about what a gerund can or cannot take, I was articulating a distinction between a gerund and a gerundive that is, as you note, rarely observed any longer. Under that analysis, “My hitting you” wouldn’t be allowed–which is probably why nobody bothers with making such distinctions any longer.

The Cambridge grammar is probably the most out-with-the-rules in its attitude of the current crop of grammars, and readers of this blog might enjoy the Language Log blog, to which Huddleston’s coauthor, Geoffrey Pullum, frequently contributes. I think it’s still useful to say that a given present participle is acting as a noun or is not (whether you want to call the noun a gerund or not is up to you), because recognizing the difference is what helps editors avoid errors such as the one I wrote this Tip about: misidentifying a present progressive and introducing a genitive marker (the apostrophe) into what is clearly not a context that requires the genitive.

But I’m not convinced you can so easily say that what the writer did was wrong. You can substitute semantically equivalent nouns here: “For new companies’ effort”, and “the publicists’ deception”.

I have no idea why you think that gerunds can’t take objects. That would mean that only intransitive verbs could have gerund forms. What about “My hitting you was wrong”?

In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, (2002), on p1222, Rodney Huddleston concludes a discussion looking at the distinction between gerunds and present participles in traditional grammar with:

“We conclude that there is no difference of form, function, or interpretation that correlates systematically with the traditional distinction between ‘gerund’ and ‘present participle’. The distinction introduces an unmotivated complication into the grammar: it is one of the features of traditional grammar that should be discarded.”

“People’s being able to post” would indeed be what we would write if the context required it. Usage specialists have an ongoing debate about how to analyze such contexts, however, which would be the subject of a new post! I also wrote more about it in the April-May 2008 issue (”For clarity’s sake: The endangered concept of the genitive”).

Seems to me the apostrophe can only sit with being, if being is used as a noun. Consider: “the companies’ being (as in existence) was threatened by the global recession.”
I’d value your thoughts…?
cheers
colin