Discussion: NYT Public Editor: Abramson Probably Wasn't Fired For Being 'Pushy'

Discussion for article #222804

This is becoming a game of 20 Questions for Inside Journalism groupys. I suspect clues of “hotter, colder” will be next. Truly, who really cares about the non-person, formerly known as Jill Abramson, besides her family and personal acquaintances?

NYT, get over yourself.

1 Like

This story is getting a lot of coverage. If gender bias is involved, shame on the NY Times — and Ms. Abramson and the media should take it too the Times. But all I hear is speculation for the sake of a story. No one is speculating that Ms. Abramson was fired because she was not very good at her job. I for one thought he tenure at the Times was akin to Tina Brown’s at the New Yorker and then Newsweek — they did not make their mediums better. Not because they are women, because they lead their paper and magazines south. Abramson tilted the NY Times heavily toward the right, and the quality of the reporting is severely lacking. I am glad to see her go. Wish they would have fired Douthat and Dowd along with Ms. Abramson.

8 Pulitzers and increased revenue in less than 3 years is leading the paper south?

1 Like

“It was more that she was undiplomatic and less than judicious in some management and personnel decisions”

Oh.

1 Like

“Ironically, just two days before Abramson’s ouster Sullivan wrote a column centered on a recent Women’s Media Center study that found the Times had the biggest gender gap in bylines among the nation’s 10 most widely circulated newspapers”

Ironic, indeed.

1 Like

Their political reporting is what I was referring to — it has been heading south since their obsequious coverage of the run up to the Iraq War and most of the Bush / Cheney coverage.

headline : Corporate Spokeperson with No Power Defends Boss

1 Like

raises hand - I have a question.

Why is anyone asking the NYT for this information and actually expecting a straight answer on the reasons?

You know who knows the real reasons? Ms. Abramson, likely Mr. Sulzberg, and the legal department. Everything else right now is opinion and speculation. Although I have to admit I’m getting a serious chuckle out of some of the laziest “journalists” around suddenly acting like Carl Bernstein and expecting us to take them seriously (looking at you, Dylan Byers, as you screech at the top of your white privileged lungs about how this has absolutely nothing to do with gender).

Seems like a bit of a tail chasing adventure to get “answers” from the Op-Ed page of the paper she was dismissed from.

1 Like

Trying to square the circle in my head that Sullivan somehow sees that sentence as a completely different description than “pushy”.

Aint happening.

1 Like

Right, I get it. Hands up for those who’ve known male superiors who’ve been let go for being “undiplomatic and less than judicious in some management and personnel decisions.”

2 Likes

Perhaps. However, that slide began under Bill Keller’s leadership. Abramson took over in September 2011, well after the events you mention and furthermore, she wasn’t even part of the Times until then.

2 Likes

They don’t get let go. They’re celebrated for “risk-taking”, “boldness” and “straight talk”.

Dylan Byers. White privileged male who is…to put it kindly, nowhere close to the caliber of reporter that he thinks he is.

Well, now I have a long list of reasons why Jill Abramson wasn’t fired.

Let me know when we get to the part about why she was.