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.”