No Wonder NYT Is Going Broke – You Just Can’t Make This Stuff Up

There is big time Hi-Jinx going on at the NYT, or is that redundant? Recently their new Managing Editor, Jill Abramson was fired over the subject of “Pay Equality”. The NYT Blew This One. There were two stories on DRUDGE that should make the NYT, well, look stupid. It started out Abramson wanted equal pay of that of outgoing William Keller. Pinch, no brains, Salzburger in a fit, fired her for her audacity. Well, the first story is the WHY Abramson was fired, the second article says Abramson made more than Keller. So, when you look at the overall management of the NYT, the simple response was, YES, we’ll give you a PAY CUT and you’ll be right in line. But the NYT being the BRAINS of the Journalism World, just made an ass of itself, AGAIN. You Just Can’t Make This Stuff Up

Story One:
May 14, 2014
Why Jill Abramson Was Fired

At the annual City University Journalism School dinner, on Monday, Dean Baquet, the managing editor of the New York Times, was seated with Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., the paper’s publisher. At the time, I did not give a moment’s thought to why Jill Abramson, the paper’s executive editor, was not at their table. Then, at 2:36 P.M. on Wednesday, an announcement from the Times hit my e-mail, saying that Baquet would replace Abramson, less than three years after she was appointed the first woman in the top job. Baquet will be the first African-American to lead the Times.

Fellow-journalists and others scrambled to find out what had happened. Sulzberger had fired Abramson, and he did not try to hide that. In a speech to the newsroom on Wednesday afternoon, he said, “I chose to appoint a new leader of our newsroom because I believe that new leadership will improve some aspects …” Abramson chose not to attend the announcement, and not to pretend that she had volunteered to step down.

As with any such upheaval, there’s a history behind it. Several weeks ago, I’m told, Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs. “She confronted the top brass,” one close associate said, and this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was “pushy,” a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect. Sulzberger is known to believe that the Times, as a financially beleaguered newspaper, needed to retreat on some of its generous pay and pension benefits; Abramson, who spent much of her career at the Wall Street Journal, had been at the Times for far fewer years than Keller, which accounted for some of the pension disparity.

More here:
Story Two:

New York Times publisher fires back, calls claim that Jill Abramson was paid less ‘not true’
By Ashe Schow | MAY 15, 2014 AT 2:28 PM

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher of the New York Times, told staff that it was “simply not true” that now-fired Executive Editor Jill Abramson was paid less than her male predecessor, according to a staff memo obtained by Politico.

A bombshell report on Wednesday revealed that Abramson had discussed the pay inequity with Sulzberger and that the gap was closed, but that Abramson had also asked a lawyer to inquire about past pay and pension disparities.

Sulzberger’s denial that Abramson was paid less would discredit the earlier report.

“It is simply not true that Jill’s compensation was significantly less than her predecessors,” Sulzberger wrote, as quoted by Politico. “Her pay is comparable to that of earlier executive editors.”

Not only that, but, according to Sulzberger, Abramson’s “total compensation package” for 2013 was 10 percent higher than her male predecessor’s.

Moron Here:


  1. From The New Yorker:

    Let’s look at some numbers I’ve been given: As executive editor, Abramson’s starting salary in 2011 was $475,000, compared to Keller’s salary that year, $559,000. Her salary was raised to $503,000, and—only after she protested—was raised again to $525,000. She learned that her salary as managing editor, $398,000, was less than that of the male managing editor for news operations, John Geddes. She also learned that her salary as Washington bureau chief, from 2000 to 2003, was a hundred thousand dollars less than that of her successor in that position, Phil Taubman. (Murphy would say only that Abramson’s compensation was “broadly comparable” to that of Taubman and Geddes.)

    Murphy cautioned that one shouldn’t look at salary but, rather, at total compensation, which includes, she said, any bonuses, stock grants, and other long-term incentives. This distinction appears to be the basis of Sulzberger’s comment that Abramson was not earning “significantly less.” But it is hard to know how to parse this without more numbers from the Times. For instance, did Abramson’s compensation pass Keller’s because the Times’ stock price rose? Because her bonuses came in up years and his in down years? Because she received a lump-sum long-term payment and he didn’t?

    The obvious response by the Times would be to publish the hard numbers, but that would require the consent of both Mr Keller and Mrs Abramson. Even with that, Mrs Abramson was not with the NYT for as long, having spent much of her career with The Wall Street Journal.

    Naturally, I have to laugh at the hypocrisy of the left, and wonder if it’s even possible to be a liberal but not a hypocrite anymore. And we can always hope that maybe this kerfuffle will teach the left that exactly equal salaries will never really exist, but that would require some confidence that liberals can actually learn something, and I’m not so sure about that.

    We’re being told that Mrs Abramson was difficult for whom to work, and it occurs to me that that might be something from her days with the Journal, where they suffer fools far less gladly, and where common sense and actual knowledge about economics and business are required, something which would surely conflict with the lefties at the Times.

  2. A pox on both their houses. Abramson was an arrogant overpaid jerk (like Sulzberger) who managed to get a position one step beyond her competence level (like Sulzberger) then tried to conceal her shortcomings behind the bullying facade typical of petty tyrants (like Sulzberger). But that’s not why she was fired.

    Abramson wasn’t fired over money, that’s just a convenient after-the-fact fiction, a cover story much like the imaginary anti-Islamic video of Benghazi fame trotted out to rally mob support for her side, and the misdirection couldn’t happen to a more deserving pack of smear merchants. The Times has pulled the same and similar dirty tricks so many times it’s something of a comeuppance to see the smarmy jerks hoisted on their own petard.

    Incidentally, Abramson was making far more than she deserved. She wasn’t fired for demanding more money, nor was she fired for throwing her weight around and trying to lord it over long time department heads, or making unilateral high level management decisions and then throwing hissy fits when she couldn’t get her way. She was fired for the unforgivable crime of telling the truth about Obama. Abramson had to go because she couldn’t be trusted to toe the party line. The bell tolled for her when she was outspoken against White House secrecy:

    I would say it is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering…

    Not only are the upcoming mid-term elections in the offing, Hillary’s campaign for the presidency is linked so tightly to Benghazi and to the Obama Administration’s bungling lies, the NY Times is going to be the establishment media’s major weapon the in the PR war to keep the truth of Hillary’s betrayal of Americans fighting for their lives under wraps. Abramson had proved she couldn’t be trusted to play ball.

    *If Obama and Hillary are to remain in position at the center of national politics (and it’s Sulzberge’s designated mission to keep them there) they must be allowed to escape punishment for a multitude of crimes. To do so the NY Times must stand as an unshakable mighty shield, it must deny their culpability, make excuses for their crimes, lie for them, deceive the public, attack their accusers, confuse, conflate, and obfuscate facts and events, all to protect the manifestly guilty from a mountain of malfeasance.

    Abramson had to go. She’s been replaced with a deceiver so reliably in-step with the Administration’s spinmeisters Democrats can relax knowing the NY Times is already prepped in advance to fulfill it’s role as a dedicated house organ for the coming cover up.

    *PS: Expect James Risen to leave the Times almost immediately. Like Abramson, he too recently went public with criticism of WH secrecy and called the Obama Administration “the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.”

    * previously posted at Patterico’s site.

  3. For a free thinking person, the oxymoronic thinking of the NYT and its a way of lowering its standards again says this is no longer the paper of record. Actually we do not have one anymore. However, the NYT is America’s versin of PRAVDA where truth is optional and comes in 14,000 shades of gray [or Red]. (and if the Editor can spell PRAVDA in Russian, I would appreciate it)

    The NYT spread out on a table is perfectly fit for a Watermelon Party where you have your Reds hiding under the over of the Greens.

  4. I know that York can spell Правда on his own, but it’s a pain without a Cyrillic keyboard. Не существует истины в “Известия” и нет новостей в “Правда”

Comments are closed.