First female NYT editor fired for being bossy and questioning pay gap

UPDATE (5-18-14): Pinch Sulzberger denies that sexism had anything to do with his decision to sack Jill Abramson.  According to Sulzberger, a number of negative issues surrounded Abramson’s tenure as editor including, “arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult and bring colleagues with her, inadequate communication and the public mistreatment of colleagues.”

Perhaps Abramson was the wrong person for the job.  But I can honestly say that I am very much enjoying the NYT being forced to run the same gauntlet that liberals routinely use to punish other businesses when they make a controversial decision about anyone considered to be part of the victim class.

Jill Abramson, the first female editor of the New York Times, has been fired after serving less than three years in that prestigious position.

According to inside sources, Abramson confronted newspaper owner Pinch Sulzberger about the fact that she earned noticeably less than her predecessor, long-time editor Bill Keller.  Apparently, Sulzbeger justified the pay disparity by rehashing the paper’s financial troubles, and noting that Keller had been with the Times far longer than Abramson when he was promoted to editor.  The newspaper claimed that Abramson’s total compensation package (including pension and benefits) was “directly comparable” to Keller’s – although not equal.

Abramson had also questioned the direction and management of the Times‘ digital imprint, as well as advertising and business decisions made by the paper’s business managers.  Apparently she quickly gained a reputation for being “pushy,” which of course is simply a more politically correct way of saying “bossy,” or that she angered the good old boys at the top by failing to stay in her proper place.

But the Times has already atoned for its sins.  Sulzberger announced that Abramson will be replaced by Dean Baquet, who will become the paper’s first African-American editor.  So all is well in the heart of political correctness.  No word yet on what Baquet will be paid, though.

Maybe the Times took it upon itself to see whether you really could hire a woman to do a man’s job for only 77% of the pay.  I certainly wouldn’t put that past them.  The Sulzbergers love money just as much as the rest of New York City’s patrician class.

I’ll let Instapundit Glenn Reynolds have the last word here: “Perhaps the reason why people at the New York Times, and in the Obama White House, think that American society is rife with sexism is because that’s how things are — at the New York Times, and in the Obama White House.”


Posted by on May 16, 2014.
Filed under Hypocrisy, Media, Women.
Tagged with: .

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • GarandFan

    “Abramson’s total compensation package (including pension and benefits) was “directly comparable” to Keller’s – although not equal.”

    What do you expect from a REPUBLICAN newspaper and it’s continuing “war on women”? Oh wait………………………..

    In that case, move on, nothing to see here but more Democratic HYPOCRISY.

  • Commander_Chico

    Let’s face it, guys: there are few females who are good bosses. You have to layer on an extra level of discretion in dealing with them. You can’t just tell them shit, the way you can with a guy boss; they take reality personally.

    Usually, women are passive-aggressive and capricious in dealing with subordinates. Sometimes they go insane with what they think is power.

    • Brucehenry

      If you’ve never had a male boss who was passive-aggressive and capricious you’ve been luckier than I have.

      Plus I’ve had several who were way too interested in proving how tough and manly they were — usually by insisting that their subordinates weren’t as tough and manly as they themselves were back in the unproveable past. Bullies.

      There was one guy in particular. I had worked for him for years, knowing he was a bully and an arbitrary asshole, but with a supervisor in between him and me. When I was promoted to that supervisor’s position I had to work with him nearly every day. Within two years I was having nightmares in which I was strangling the son of a bitch. That’s when I left.

      • Commander_Chico

        Yes, me too, but on average you’re much better off working for a guy. At least guys are more direct.

        With females, you have to deal with more lies and backstabbing, plus their emotional paranoia dramas.

        • Retired military

          Keep digging that hole Chico

        • Jwb10001

          You have no freakin idea what you’re talking about.

      • jim_m

        Here, Bruce, is your comparison to Rush Limbaugh. Chico makes an obviously sexist comment but is competely ignorant to how prejudiced and ignorant his comment is. He believes it to be some sort of compelling truth that everyone will agree with but instead it is just bullshit.

        • Brucehenry

          Yes Chico can be a little ummmm, insensitive sometimes. He’s human too.

          I admit I used to say stuff like that too before I became the father of two daughters. You live and learn.

          • jim_m

            It shouldn’t take having a daughter to teach you this lesson.

          • jim_m

            Perhaps I should be more explicit: I doubt it was having a daughter that taught you that lesson. I would wager that you learned that lesson by the time you got married. I would guess that Chico’s state of bachelorhood has allowed him to live in a world where women are less than individuals.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL no you’re right it shouldn’t have. Hell, I have three very smart and talented sisters who have done good things in life, plus our Mom had to raise all four of us alone in the 1950s and 60s.

            I wasn’t always as smart and enlightened as I am now. Plus I used to drink a lot and that had me saying dumbass blowhard stuff quite a bit, so there’s that, lol.

    • jim_m

      Chico comes out to show us that not only are lefties thoroughly prejudiced but they are blind to that prejudice.

    • JWH

      That’s fucking sexist, Chico.

      • jim_m

        I’ve had bad bosses of both sexes. I never thought to ascribe it to their genetic make up.

      • Commander_Chico

        Right. Nature is sexist.

        • JWH

          I’ve had good and bad bosses of both sexes. I figured that in each case, it was something unique to their personalities. Silly me for not realizing the answers lay below the belt.

          • jim_m

            That’s the difference between someone who treats people as individuals and a bigot. Chico treats people according to some category of race, ethnicity, religion, or sex rather than as the individuals they are.

    • Retired military

      That sounds extremely sexist to me. And totally incorrect IMO.
      I am quite certain that you will gladly put Hillary into your category of “few” who are obviously great in their jobs.

  • JWH

    Over the past several days, I think every female journalist with a platform has excoriated the NYT over this. A lot of factors could have contributed to Jill Abramson’s lower pay and her dismissal. But as they have been revealed so far, the facts don’t look good for the NYT.

    • Brett Buck

      Why, it’s almost as if the only information revealed is the information that advances the “sexist”/”men are bad, boo!” narrative.

    • Retired military

      ” A lot of factors could have contributed to Jill Abramson’s lower pay and her dismissal”
      Leftists don’t look at that normally. They just want everything to be even period. regardless of circumstances, ability, performance, or level of outcome. Especially when they are talking about how bad republicans are.

      • JWH

        I can’t speak to general stereotypes of leftists, but I can see elements in support of both sides of a potential dispute between Abramson and the NYT. But I think this looks really bad for the NYT.

        • Rodney G. Graves

          You wrote:

          I can’t speak to general stereotypes of leftists…

          Yes, you can.

          You are one of the three most consistent stereotypical leftests to plague this blog.

        • Jwb10001

          It looks particularly bad for the NY Times because they portray themselves as the righteous crusaders for gender equality. The reality is, like most crusaders what they really mean is “thee not me.” It’s a form of “not in my backyard” self righteousness.

  • deltamary

    I have been out of the work force for several years (Retired now). I was very fortunate to have wonderful male bosses my entire career. I had contact with many offices in which there were female bosses. I would have NEVER worked in that environment. The are a breed of their own. Women acting like women instead of professionals is the way I saw it. Most of them are rude, with major harmone problems ,& a hidden desire to flaunt their position by wanting to be catered to-Just like the “boss” in the move-”The Devil Wears Prada”. I know there are exceptions out there but I never ran across one. I still work some part time. Min. Wage, 10 hours a week and I love it. I do my job, clock out and go home.

    • Commander_Chico

      Tell it, Mary.