Discussion: NYT Fired Abramson Right After Asking Her To 'Sign On For Some More Years'

Discussion for article #222840

Sounds like the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing at the Times. Sounds also as if Dean Bacquet engineered the whole firing. Gosh, wonder why?


Some folks at the times are hoping and praying that Abramson sticks with the ostensible settlement. But it also sounds as if there is no honor among thieves, else there wouldn’t be this constant flow of leaks (which for the moment I am assuming don’t come from abramson.)

Sulzberger and the Times have argued that Abramson's inquiries about compensation did not factor into the publisher's decision to replace her. However, a Times spokeswoman has reportedly said the hiring of a lawyer was "part of a pattern that caused frustration."

Would that be a pattern of wanting to be paid the same as men who’ve held the same job? Yeah, that can get frustrating.

Bottom line: Abramson’s management style may not have been a day at the beach, but any male who managed that way would simply be called “tough” or “old-school” or “uncompromising.”


…decisive, commanding, strong leader…


“Bold”, “Willing to take risks”, a “Straight talker”

1 Like

Keep sounding out those thoughts. You are bound to hit on the right one (Lilly Ledbetter).

Read “Bring Up the Bodies” by Hilary Mantel to understand what happened behind the scenes. Intrigue at the court of Sulzberger! The courtiers know that to win favor, they should feed the king the evidence he needs to get rid of the annoyance. At least Jill won’t lose her head, a la Anne Boleyn.

Who gives a meh? Were she still alive, Claire Boothe Luce may have made an entertaining screenplay out it, but the reality bites!

I find no sympathetic participant. At the end of the week, all of them will be well compensated, including JA, after an-out-of-court settlement. She will probably “work in that town again” and make a nice living. The story has no larger significance; JA is not a poster child Lily Ledbetter would adopt.

1 Like

Raising pay disparity along legally discriminatory lines with the boss is tricky and apt to send up a red flag unless handled very carefully, and often not even then, while bringing in a lawyer will be seen as a hostile act every time, i.e., party over (been there on behalf of others without lawyer and seen the hammer come down). All other issues aside, Abramson’s reported action appears as either naive, a serious tactical misjudgment or at wit’s (and job’s) end.

Intially, I was of the opnion that tha Times couldn’t be that stupid to sack a woman who was inquring abut the pay differential between her and male peers. I thought it had to be a cluster of other factors, but now it seems as if that was the prime mover after a series of other issues which were secondary and tertiary.