New York Times (NYT) building in NYC.
New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. released a statement on Saturday attempting to clarify why former executive editor Jill Abramson was fired. Abramson, who made headlines herself in another way, drew fire for calling the Obama administration the least transparent administration she has ever covered. Naturally, specualtion arose over whether the liberal newspaper fired her for her comments.
Sulzberger says she was fired because “she had lost the support of her masthead colleagues and could not win it back.” He also what he characterized as “incorrect reports that Jill’s compensation package was not comparable with her predecessor’s,” and said her pursuit of a pay raise has no role in the decision to terminate her.
However, while he addressed the issue of equal pay for women, an issue that fits neatly in to the narrative the liberal New York Times pushes, the statement omitted any reference to her classification of the Obama administration, altogether.
“During her tenure, I heard repeatedly from her newsroom colleagues, women and men, about a series of issues, including arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult and bring colleagues with her, inadequate communication and the public mistreatment of colleagues,” Sulzberger wrote in the statement.
“I discussed these issues with Jill herself several times and warned her that, unless they were addressed, she risked losing the trust of both masthead and newsroom,” he continued. “She acknowledged that there were issues and agreed to try to overcome them. We all wanted her to succeed. It became clear, however, that the gap was too big to bridge and ultimately I concluded that she had lost the support of her masthead colleagues and could not win it back.”
The paper has had a series of problems with their editors in recent years. Margaret Sullivan, another editor of the New York Times, admitted last year that the paper does have a liberal media bias. Daniel Okrent, the first public editor, wrote a column answering that very questions. He answered in the affirmative.
The full statement:
Perhaps the saddest outcome of my decision to replace Jill Abramson as executive editor of The New York Times is that it has been cast by many as an example of the unequal treatment of women in the workplace. Rather than accepting that this was a situation involving a specific individual who, as we all do, has strengths and weaknesses, a shallow and factually incorrect storyline has emerged.
Fueling this have been persistent but incorrect reports that Jill’s compensation package was not comparable with her predecessor’s. This is untrue. Jill’s pay package was comparable with Bill Keller’s; in fact, by her last full year as executive editor, it was more than 10% higher than his.
Equal pay for women is an important issue in our country – one that The New York Times often covers. But it doesn’t help to advance the goal of pay equality to cite the case of a female executive whose compensation was not in fact unequal.
I decided that Jill could no longer remain as executive editor for reasons having nothing to do with pay or gender. As publisher, my paramount duty is to ensure the continued quality and success of The New York Times. Jill is an outstanding journalist and editor, but with great regret, I concluded that her management of the newsroom was simply not working out.
During her tenure, I heard repeatedly from her newsroom colleagues, women and men, about a series of issues, including arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult and bring colleagues with her, inadequate communication and the public mistreatment of colleagues. I discussed these issues with Jill herself several times and warned her that, unless they were addressed, she risked losing the trust of both masthead and newsroom. She acknowledged that there were issues and agreed to try to overcome them. We all wanted her to succeed. It became clear, however, that the gap was too big to bridge and ultimately I concluded that she had lost the support of her masthead colleagues and could not win it back.
Since my announcement on Wednesday I have had many opportunities to talk to and hear reactions from my colleagues in the newsroom. While surprised by the timing, they understood the decision and the reasons I had to make it.
We are very proud of our record of gender equality at The New York Times. Many of our key leaders – both in the newsroom and on the business side – are women. So too are many of our rising stars. They do not look for special treatment, but expect to be treated with the same respect as their male colleagues. For that reason they want to be judged fairly and objectively on their performance. That is what happened in the case of Jill.
Equality is at the core of our beliefs at The Times. It will always be.
