For John, BLUF: War on Women from the Progressives. Nothing to see here; just move along.
Over at the Althouse blog is this headline—"How the NYT called Jill Abramson — its axed executive editor — a bitch."
This "all the news that's fit to print" business is tricky... especially when you're firing your first-ever! female executive editor and replacing her with your first-ever! black executive editor. The fit-to-print article — "Times Ousts Its Executive Editor, Elevating Second in Command" — is some of the best raw material for interpreters of crafty text that I have ever seen.And, as Professor Althouse points out, The Old Gray Lady manages to implicate Ms Jill Abramson in racist actions.
Of course that is the counter to the charges floating out there (see Twitchy) that this was about Ms Abramson confronting upper management on the fact that she was being paid considerably less in salary and other compensation than her predecessor, Mr Bill Keller. Now that is ugly, but not as ugly as the implication from The Times that Ms Abramson is a racist.
Hat tip to Ann Althouse and to Instapundit.
Regards — Cliff
In an email to all employees today Chairman Arthur Sulzberger denied that Jill Abramson was making less that Bill Keller. In fact he stated that her last full year (2013) she was paid 10% MORE than Bill Keller in his last year (2010).He also states that she was terminated due to "concerns [he] had about some aspects of [her] management of our newsroom, which [he] had previously made clear to her, both face-to-face and in [her] annual assessment."
ReplyDeleteTo "Unknown"
ReplyDeleteMaybe.
You might be right. She just leaned in too far.
Regards — Cliff