Discussion for article #222867
Well, perhaps Mr. Sulzberger couldâve potentially foreseen the narrative that grips Abramsonâs story today, and made these âactualâ reasons he lists for her dismissal publicly apparent in the beginning. He is in the business of reporting news, not making it. If he is caught blind-sided by this alleged one-sided take on her firing, he couldâve taken the story by the reins and made it go the âtruthfulâ way. Yes, folks may have recoiled at this, but perhaps some of this angle couldâve been prevented. But, at any rate, here we areâŚ
4 Likes
if iâm not mistaken, both sides signed a nondisparagement clause. i believe sulzberger has just violated it and made his situations 10x worse. what an arrogant dope.
6 Likes
shorter Sulzberg : I didnât like her, so I fired her.
1 Like
I never knew there was such a thing - âa nondisparagement clause.â -but he certainly did some serious disparaging. Heâs doubling-down on the stoopid and thereâs no way now this will just âgo awayâ.
4 Likes
yeah, i read about it in one of the first tpm articles about this a few days ago. i think it is like the nondisclosure agreements that are made in civil liability suits, where if you violate it you owe 3x what the original settlement was. maybe steve in nc will have better details.
So often time clarifies the story, as it did here and with the candidate in Miississippi and the blogger. it is too bad that the clarification generally reeks of recalibrating the truth.
2 Likes
Just read about it myself and sure enough itâs in force to protect the employer, not the employee. Typical, but it works both ways Iâm guessing and except for high profile firings the employee has zero leverage in publically expressing his grievances. . So LOL!
Oh BS. If you didnât want it to be about sexism maybe you should have thought about it before you fired her abruptly, let the story get away from you and now pretend to be the âreasonable manâ having to get rid of the bitchy, bossy woman. Are you KIDDING? Is there a man alive that would be treated this way?
8 Likes
This has all the markings of an impulsive decision driven more by the history of the individual making the decision than the facts obtaining in the present circumstances.
One of the major problems with power is that it often impels actions that are ill thought through ahead of time.
Tip: If youâre in a position of power and the emotions well up, hit the pause button as many times as necessary so that you can access rational reflection before acting. The situation is rarely as urgent as it seems (unless the bullet is literally already on its way).
5 Likes
Still doesnât ring true. If the management style was so very awful, why not let her go by giving her a termination date, and have her announce that sheâs moving on to different challenges?
Rather than abruptly canning her and, in the process, getting caught completely flat-footed by the reaction?
Do better, NY Times.
11 Likes
Pretty much describes this âexpansionâ on the reasoning behind the firing.
whether this is true or not, the entire thing still makes me very uncomfortable.
he has lost the hearts and minds on this one, surely.
i used to look up to Mr. Sulzberger. I do not any longer. I think his mystique and respect has probably taken a hit with a lot of people.
2 Likes
I wasnât a fan of Jill Abramson and I think she was a bad choice. She made some horrible appointments and promotions. NYT has gotten measurably worse during her tenure and Iâm glad she is gone. And Iâm a huge fan of Dean Baquet. He will do very well as exec editor, as he was during his tenure at the Los Angeles Times. He ran a magnificent Washington bureau under Keller before he was promoted to managing editor.
That said, however. I have never seen such a brutal, bloody management change in public,in the field of journalism. Itâs shocking. Some of it was Ms. Abramson, who by all accounts refused to go quietly. But Sulzie et al could have taken the high road. This is a huge black eye for the Times. Pretty sad.
They are very common in the field of journalism â you may not have heard much about them cuz it keeps both parties publicly silent about the other; IOW, they usually work. I understand Major Garrett had one with Fox when he got fired for reporting actual facts. I think that Dan Rather did not have one with CBS.
7 Likes
Thanks Tom, for the perspective. Seems on the mark.
3 Likes
Whatever the facts of the case, itâs hard to escape the conclusion that Sulzberger blew it.
What idiot thinks you dump your top person without warning and nobody notices? He should shut his yap after saying, âWe had our reasons for making this move, but we certainly didnât handle it with grace or good preparation. Ms. Abramson has done some very fine work here at The Times and deserved a more dignified exit. I regret acting precipitously.â
5 Likes
Also too, why has Dylan Byers of Politico been so intent on explaining that thereâs no sexism here?
Weird, that.
3 Likes
I have some deeply conflicted emotions about this story. The one thing I know about Jill Abramson is her book about Clarence Thomas is awesome. But being a great reporter doesnât automatically make you a great editor, and I think people are way too quick to play the gender card here. I mean, how is it that Sulzberger was so enlightened in 2011 that he entrusted the worldâs greatest newspaper to a woman, but heâs such a pig now that he fired her?
The day after the firing, I heard two separate female journalists say on public radio that it was sexist even to say Abramson was tough and aggressive. They claimed that youâd never say that about a man in the same position. Well maybe. Iâve been working in newsrooms for 25 years and we call male editors who are like that fucking pricks, assholes and any number of other colorful names. I have actively worked (sometimes successfully) for their ouster.
My point is that we donât know all the facts, but it sounds like Abramson (as with Howell Raines before her) had some issues getting along with people. She had the top job at the top paper in journalism. There are no guarantees in that heady space. To reflexively scream sexism when Abramson got dumped does everybody a disservice, I think.
10 Likes
A response like that would have quieted everything down. Now it just looks like Pinch Sulzberger has dug in his heels and decided to dish dirt on Abramson, possibly damaging her future job prospects.
Assclown.
Whatever the exact reason for Abramsonâs firing was, that truth has been spoiled by the way it was done and the time gap between explaining or making excuses, depending on how you see it.
With the power of the NYT on his side and as publisher, Sulzberger couldâve and shouldâve been all over this right from the get. Heâs saying that she had issues but this doesnât make him look a whole lot better.
2 Likes