Skip to comments.Jill Abramson ousted from New York Times
Posted on 05/14/2014 2:28:03 PM PDT by Beave Meister
New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson was abruptly fired from the paper on Wednesday, sources familiar with the news informed POLITICO.
Managing editor Dean Baquet will take over as executive editor, effective immediately.
The news of her departure was met with shock throughout the newsroom. Senior editors were unexpectedly summoned to a 2 p.m. leadership meeting at the Times headquarters in New York. The news was then announced in a staff-wide meeting by publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr.
In his announcement, Sulzberger said Abramsons departure was related to an issue with management in the newsroom, and had nothing to do with the quality of the papers journalism during her tenure. Abramson was not present for the newsroom announcement.
(Earlier on POLITICO: Turbulence at The Times)
I choose to appoint a new leader for our newsroom because I believe that new leadership will improve some aspects of the management of the newsroom, Sulzberger said. This is not about any disagreement between the newsroom and the business side.
In a separate statement, Abramson said, Ive loved my run at The Times. I got to work with the best journalists in the world doing so much stand-up journalism.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Wymyn Gerbilists taking leaks in the Men's gender Room?
Pinch strikes again
What she do? Tell the truth?
She doesn’t know how to do that
Yeah, but I can’t imagine what else gets you fired at a sinkhole like the Old Gray Slut.
One Leftist partisan martinet will be replaced with another one...
And they will continue to sink, only being propped up by Carlos Slim’s money as long as they parrot his line
Well, bird owners find that the NYTs doesn't hold as much bird poop since the pages are already filled with bullsh!t
Why would ANY leftist ideologue get fired from the Slimes? ALWAYS follow the money.
Every editor has a story about how shes blown up in a meeting, one reporter said. Jill can be impossible, said another staffer. Just a year and a half into her tenure as executive editor, Abramson is already on the verge of losing the support of the newsroom. Staffers commend her skills and her experience but question whether she has the temperament to lead the paper. At times, they say, her attitude toward editors and reporters leaves everyone feeling demoralized; on other occasions, she can seem disengaged or uncaring. She was in over her head, and so was the entire institution of the NYT and possibly the institution of newspapers in general.
Cry me up a storm!
Though I have no idea why she was sh#t canned.....I would bet lots of money the trail leads back to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave....
She exhibited an original thought?
This is the guy who spiked the NSA story.
Hhmmm...War on Women eh NYT?
I hope I don't need a sarcasm tag on that.
Jill Abramson succeeded Keller as executive editor in July 2011, in the midst of the Obama era. She tells Takeaway host John Hockenberry that the White House’s relationship with the press has only deteriorated.
“The Obama years are a benchmark for a new level of secrecy and control,” says Abramson. “It’s created quite a challenging atmosphere for The New York Times, and for some of the best reporters in my newsroom who cover national security issues in Washington.”
Abramson says that the administration’s criminal leak investigations have presented large obstacles to news coverage.
“There have been seven of them, and one of them right now threatens my colleague James Risen who has been subpoenaed in one of these cases,” she says. “Collectively, they have really, I think, put a chill on reporting about national security issues in Washington.”
Those that are covering national security, according to Abramson, say that is has never been more difficult to get information.
“Sources who want to come forward with important stories that they feel the public needs to know are just scared to death that they’re going to be prosecuted,” she says. “Reporters fear that they will find themselves subpoenaed in this atmosphere.”
Abramson says that the Obama Administration uses legal loopholes to make things difficult for journalists and media organizations. She says, for example, that the Obama Justice Department pursues cases against reporters under an obscure provision of the 1917 Espionage Act.
“I think, in a back door way using an obscure provision of an old law, they are tip-toeing close to things that, here in the United States, we’ve never had,” says Abramson.
In addition to shutting out reporters, Abramson says that photographers also have less access.
“Instead, [there’s] a preference to have journalists rely on photography handouts from the White House,” she says. “I’m not knocking the White House photographersthey’re greatbut you don’t want one source for all information and all imagery about the president.”
While Abramson says that the White House hasn’t completely shut out the U.S. press corps, even routine media coverage has become difficult to obtain.
“The amount of friction and confrontation involved in just going about what I see as perfectly normal coverage, that in the past wouldn’t have even provoked a discussion, becomes a protracted and somewhat exhausting process,” she says.