Skip to main content

View Diary: Jill Abramson's firing from the New York Times looks a little sexist (225 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Times pushed back immediately and said (10+ / 0-)

    they were both on the same pay scale, but that Keller had more seniority and therefore more compensation.

    The speed and directness of their response leads me to believe that is probably the truth of it.

    •  Shh! Don't interrupt the pity party! (6+ / 0-)
      •  Pity party is unfair but the diary (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        omits relevant facts and there is little basis for determining that the decision to fire was sexist.

        •  Which relevant facts are those? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Alice Olson
          •  That's my point: Abramson may be a genuinely (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Neo Control, al23, oblomov, AlexDrew

            innocent victim, but a) I think the number of genuinely innocent victims in the world is quite small, and b) the fact that you and others obviously have your minds made up that she's a put-upon saint speaks volumes.

            •  Is that what I think? (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Alice Olson, suka, anon004, I love OCD

              Actually I think it is almost certain that if Jill Abramson were a man, she would have been treated differently.

              Apparently, the idea of sexism in the executive offices is something that you and others find incredible and unprecedented.

              I guess that's a "fact" you deny and think has no bearing on this story.

              It's shocking to see here at daily kos, but I'm shocked often.

            •  A put-upon saint? Seriously? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I find it interesting how pointing out that a behavior is *-ist almost invariably seems to result in someone not only defending the behavior, but also claiming that the ones pointing out the bigotry consider the victim to be a "put-upon saint".

              I don't recall anyone--except you--saying that.

              It also seems like what you're saying is that because she wasn't all warm and cuddly--in essence, because she exhibited a managerial style that is pretty much invariably praised as being strong and effective when it's a male doing it--that paying her less and then firing her suddenly and unceremoniously is somehow justified, because you find it unlikely that she's truly "a genuinely innocent victim".

              Please understand:  it DOESN'T MATTER whether you or anyone else thinks she's a "genuinely innocent victim" or not.  What matters is that her bosses victimized her, apparently because she is female and they didn't like the fact that she behaved like a male, and apparently also because she called them on their sh*t and women aren't supposed to do that.

              Magic is the fine art of getting off your ass and doing something.

              by Damiana on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:58:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's probably exactly what happened, and I'm (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                sad to say I wouldn't be surprised.

                But all I'm asking is that you and Armando and elmo and others wait to see, rather than jumping to the inescapable conclusion that it was sexism.

                You're shocked, Armando? I'm shocked that so many here are ready and willing to assume *-ism everywhere. I'm not defending sexism or any other kind of -ism. It irritates me, however, when someone is assumed from the get-go to be innocent because of gender, skin color, etc. Remember that pastor's wife in TN from a  few years back? She plugged him, then claimed he'd abused her. We have only her word for it, he being dead, but whether or not it turned out to be true, I was flamed for even suggesting that maybe it was true and maybe it wasn't. She simply could not have been guilty.

          •  Among others: (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Neo Control, al23, AlexDrew

            (1)  There are excellent reasons why Abramson would  be paid less then her predecessor without regard to gender, namely the continuing decline of the newspaper business.

            (2)  Abramson reportedly had clashes not only with Sulzberger but also with CEO Thompson.

            (3) There was some evidence that she was not well regarded in the newsroom and the person whose role she was carving up was.

            (4) Her proposed new hire, apparently arranged without consulting with the publisher, was going to deal with the Times online presence.  At the same time, there was also an "innovation review" headed by the publisher's son.  And the online area is a key focus for the CEO as well.   This does not sound like she was being a team player.  

            (5)  I'm not sure of the relevance but I found it interesting that the Times had , in 1978,  settled a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination by setting up an affirmative action program for women.  

            •  Response (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LSophia, hyperstation, lina

              (1) NYTimes ad revenue is UP under Abramson.

              (2) That's a reason to part ways certainly. But not in this way. No man would have been dumped like this.

              (3) There is a lot of evidence of male editors all over being poorly regarded by their newsroom and they would never be treated this way. Also Baquet's job was not being carved up.

              (4) Abramson reprtedly thought she had the green light. It became an issue when Baquet complained. The evidence seems to be the publisher DID KNOW. As for the digital edition, Abramson has received universal acclaim for her work on the Times digital property.

              (5) It's relevant that the Times has had problems in the past. Also relevant was the treatment of Janet Robinson, the Times' editorializing on equal pay and the general sexism in executive offices.

              •  Response (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Neo Control, al23

                (1) Abramson was appointed in 2011, a year  when The NYT Co. lost money.  Keller was appointed in 2003, a year in which the NYT Co was more profitable than it has been for the entire time between 2008 and 2013.   To think that this is not  a reason for the pay at which a senior executive position is filled to be lower is surprising (to put it mildly).

                (2)  You are suggesting then that what was sexist was not her termination, but the way in which it was announced?

                (3) So you keep asserting.

                (4)  Please share this evidence that Sulzberger knew and approved of the new hire.

                (5)  I am glad you agree that the diarist should have mentioned this.  

            •  another thing (0+ / 0-)

              Shouldn't someone at Abramson's level have engaged a executive employment lawyer to make sure she is correctly compensated?

              "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill

              by smartone on Thu May 15, 2014 at 09:23:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Let me guess, you're (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alice Olson

        a man, right?  Other than your comment revealing you've never encountered anything like this, hence, you have no clue what you're talking about, how did I know?

        Yours is one ugly, sexist comment.

        •  No, what is sexist is the assumption that sex (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          was even a factor in this decision, given the volume of reasons we know of- excellent reasons, having nothing to do with the matter.

          •  Republican playbook (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            anon004, I love OCD

            No, you're sexist for even bringing it up!

            I don't think we have a smoking gun here indicating that her firing was sexist. And there may be more involved than just sexism, even if it was in part sexist. However, the fact that she was making inquiries about the pay disparity (through a lawyer no less) indicates to me a high likelihood that some sexist treatment was involved here. You may differ on this, but shouting down anyone who raises the possibility of sexism, that, my friend, is not a good faith debate over this issue, and it certainly ignores the workplace context within which women are constantly denied equal treatment.

            "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

            by Lost Left Coaster on Thu May 15, 2014 at 11:17:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Neo was accused of being sexist (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Neo Control

              In what world do you imagine he shouldn't respond directly and forcefully? The abuse of sexism allegations dilutes its power. When a person like Neo can make absolutely valid claims and point out the original diarist purposely omitted information to slant the point of the diary, which is yellow journalism of a lower Fox News order, and THEN get called sexist for it, is a problem. And yes, you're part of that problem.


              by DAISHI on Thu May 15, 2014 at 01:01:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Let me clarify. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I wasn't responding to the controversy of whether Abramson's treatment was sexist (although I have my suspicions).  I was responding to Champurrado's "pity party" comment.  It's belittling to any women who has ever been discriminated against in the workplace.  It's mocking the victims and telling them they don't matter.  And unless you've encountered gender-based discrimination, you have no idea what you are talking about, and most men have no clue what it's like.  It's like a guy telling a woman that childbirth doesn't hurt that much.  Shut up and stick to what you have actual experience with, okay?  You're only embarrassing yourself.

    •  When you are at the top, there is no pay scale (12+ / 0-)

      Seniority, my ass.

      Yeah, I'll bet they have the pay scale all documented in a spreadsheet and all.  Riiiight!

      At that level there is no pay scale.  You are worth what you can demand for the job.  Corporations rely on women undervaluing themselves and not demanding more compensation.

      But, when the woman finally does ask for what she believes she is worth, she is labeled "pushy".

      Ironically, the NYT publishes articles like this that advise women to "speak up"!:

      How to Attack the Gender Wage Gap? Speak Up

    •  And then they changed their story (6+ / 0-)

      The weaselness of their response and the changing of their story leads me to believe there was a huge disparity.

    •  Wonder how big the gap was... (0+ / 0-)
    •  Bill Keller was a legend, Jill Abramson isn't (0+ / 0-)

      It's not surprising that Keller's compensation at the end of his long tenure as Executive Editor would have been higher than Abramson's.

      It doesn't matter what your job, or role is in a company, you have to get along with your boss. Even CEOs have to get along with their boards of directors. That's a critical item for any executive, and for anyone else who isn't in a union and is subject to "at will" termination.

      "let's talk about that" uid 92953

      by VClib on Fri May 16, 2014 at 09:04:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (130)
  • Community (55)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (30)
  • Environment (26)
  • Republicans (21)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Rescued (18)
  • Media (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Science (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Elections (17)
  • Labor (17)
  • Law (16)
  • GOP (16)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Marriage Equality (14)
  • Racism (14)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site