Discussion for article #223335
I think she was fired because of money. Wasn’t that the issue all along?
1 Like
Good to know that the person who got Abramson’s job doesn’t think Abramson was fired because of gender issues.
Because gosh, that person certainly is an objective bystander in all of this…
4 Likes
Just makin’ it up as they go along.
1 Like
I refuse to make a martyr or hero out of this corporate hack Abramson.
Abramson was fired because of a backstabbing whiny subordinate who was sneaking around badmouthing his boss! Who was this horrible employee???
3 Likes
First thing Abramson did as Editor-in-Chief was remake the Sunday Opinion section and Sunday Magazine into a “fair and balanced” mirror publication of Fox News. Readers bitched but she had no ears for them. As the years wore on, the slant of the Times became more towards Right-of-Center instead of dead center. That said, it is exactly the mission of Roger Ailes to shift the discussion further to the right and Abramson caved into that like a landslide. BTW, there is no rule - gender wise or other wise - that says the new hire gets what the former person was getting. One must earn that money.
1 Like
The more the NYT insists it isn’t about gender, the less I believe them.
5 Likes
shorter Baquet : Bros before hos.
3 Likes
Somewhere, Mandy Rice-Davies is laughing yet again. What else would he say.
But his “real” explanation is complete baloney. “[T]ense relationships with management” are a symptom, not a cause. If, for example, someone’s boss were an open white supremacist, they would probably have seriously tense relationships with black subordinates. But if one of those subordinates suddenly got fired, no one would say it was the tense relationship that caused it.
Times management really seem to have gone out of its way to not do itself any favors when speaking about this whole thing.
2 Likes
The firing didn’t bother me nearly as much as how they fired her and then bashed her in the public arena, doing a nice job of ensuring she couldn’t get another job. Generally high level management is allowed to save face thus avoiding a public confrontation or humiliation. Sure seems humiliation was the point.
So equal pay for equal work should only apply to people you like?
“I do not believe, by the way, that Jill was fired because of gender… Obviously, there was a significant disagreement between Jill and the publisher, and Jill and me.” - Baquet
“Are we not men?” - Devo
1 Like
Heard this interview. He sounds defensive and programmed. Not expecting much out of him. He’s obviously a company guy.
This an epic load of crap. Abramson didn’t remake either. That started under Bill Keller, you know, the Executive Editor from 2003 - 2011 (the golden era of Judy Miller, in case you forgot).
Have all the mads you want at the Times for the direction it’s taken. To lay that solely on Jill Abramson is just bull.
And ignores the publisher, and the editor of the Op-Ed pages.
But that would be taking into account pesky facts.
1 Like
He isn’t a company guy, yet. He’s a guy, and that seems to kinda matter.
Dean Baquet is/was a talented editor. This interview didn’t help anyone. The more they deny?
Shorter Baquet: My former boss is a girl. How dare she hire someone I didn’t want her to !
2 Likes
You’d think with all of the people at the Times who understand publicity and public relations—you’d think they would do a better job of handling this whole sorry mess. What a bunch of dunces, including Baquet and especially Sulzburger.
They are screwing up in the way that only smart privileged people can screw up.