BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Did the NY Times Fire Jill Abramson For Being 'Bossy'?

Following
This article is more than 9 years old.

Jill Abramson was fired from her post as executive editor of The New York Times. In her former position, she was among the top 20 most powerful women in the world. Abramson was succeeded by managing editor, Dean Baquet, according to an announcement today by Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr.

Speculation is rampant on what caused her ousting. Among the ensuing media maelstrom, one by The New Yorker's Ken Auletta is most compelling.

"Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs," Auletta writes.  If true, Abramson's dismissal after confronting her management about this, ties neatly with another well-publicized criticism against her: She's pushy. Last July, Newsweek wrote a profile on her, "Good Jill, Bad Jill," noting her often "high-handed, impatient...and obstinate" nature. Sulzberger was quoted as calling Abramson "brusque" in that feature – one of the kinder words she's been called in the media.

The New York Times (Photo credit: alecperkins)

Unequal Pay for One Of Journalism's Most Powerful Women?

If Auletta's article on her pay gap turns out to be true, it won't be a huge surprise. A study by Indiana University found female journalists made 82 cents to a male journalist's dollar in 2012.  Close to 63% of journalists in America are male, the same survey found. To consider that Abramson may be exempt from wage discrimination because of her role, could very well be a rosy fantasy. Most media outlets still have a way to go with equal gender and racial representation in both, their editorial and business sides. It is worth noting that Baquet is now the first African-American executive editor of the Times.

Auletta updated his article to add this: "A third associate told me, 'She found out that a former deputy managing editor”—a man—“made more money than she did” while she was managing editor. “She had a lawyer make polite inquiries about the pay and pension disparities, which set them off.'"

Because the assertions here are hearsay, I don't want to jump to conclusions about her pay.

Brusque? Bossy? 

What's more telling – and disturbing – are reports that emerged even before the firing, of Abramson's "pushy" personality. Auletta's post suggests that Abramson confronted "the top brass" about her alleged pay gap, which irked them. He says this fed into the Times' narrative of her "pushy" personality. That word – loaded and undeniably gendered – speaks to the deeper issues women face when they demand anything. Another assertion from Auletta that she "clashed" with Mark Thompson, the outlet's CEO, also reinforces this. Women continue to work in a world where they are expected to be demure and agreeable. Sulzberger Jr., for example, has been lauded for his tough and diligent stewardship of the Times, but the word "pushy" has never appeared next to his name.

The speculation rages on and more journalists have jumped on to Auletta's claims, including NPR's media reporter David Folkenflik, who tweeted this:

While still too early to conclude, it's clear that even the world's most powerful women are not safe from negative narrative if they are assertive. If the report is true, it's not the pay gap that irks me; those numbers can be fixed.  But how do we even begin to fix deeply-ingrained attitudes about how women should behave to be successful?