Skip to comments.Sulzberger's last straw: Fires Jill Abramson for misleading him about a new hire
Posted on 05/18/2014 6:51:47 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger fired executive editor Jill Abramson after concluding that she had misled both him and chief executive Mark Thompson during her effort to hire a new co-managing editor, according to two sources with knowledge of the reason for her termination.
While several factors contributed to Sulzbergers frustration with Abramsons management of the newsroom, the sources, who are sympathetic to the Times management, said it was this incident that sealed her fate.
In conversations and emails, Abramson led both Sulzberger and Thompson to believe that she had consulted with other newsroom leaders about her decision to offer The Guardians Janine Gibson a job as co-managing editor, the sources said. Specifically, they said she implied that both Dean Baquet, her managing editor, and Janet Elder, the deputy managing editor responsible for newsroom resources and staff development, had been informed and were on board with the plan.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
I think she didn’t bow down and lick Pinch’s toes sufficiently. He knows zero about running a business, but he doesn’t like to be reminded of that.
Culture of Corruption at NYT.
Bossy chick got fired by boss. End of story. Who the hell cares?
Assistant Managing Editor, Deputy Managing Editor, Assistant to the Deputy Managing Editor, Assistant to the Assistant Managing Editor, etc. I think if Sulzberger hired me as the General Manager I could cut the bottom line dramatically.
News about MSM people of interest to MSM people.
she sounds like a frickin nightmare
The democrats war on women continues.
Wonder if Jill’s opinion of affirmative action has changed, now that she’s the “minority” that got bumped .
Like so many “womens libbers”, Jill had a caricature image of what a man should be and how she could compete.
All snarl. Always a badass, never a buddy.
Each day she stomped into the news room with fangs barred: an Alpha male to dominate all the metrosexual men at the Times
She barred her fangs at Pinch and got punched.
Strangely enough, during her tenure, I noticed that the print edition was getting a little more interesting. I actually saw a couple of articles (features) that did not cling to the radical leftist line. I don’t read the daily paper very often, only a few weeks of the year when I’m in New York, but it seemed to me that there was a little more “diversity” (of the right kind) creeping in. Then again, maybe I was hallucinating...
If true, however, I doubt that he liked that either.
Carlos Slim should sell the NY Times and buy the LA Clippers. Less drama.
The media and liberal elite have gotten their panties in a twist over this because it's real life soap opera involving "people like us." As we all know, there nothing the media loves more than a chance to cover itself.
They are talking about her now on Meet the Depressed. It is all because she was a woman not because she sucked at her job.
She is being portrayed as a victim.
She was also probably bitchy. There are, oh so many ways to say something/anything without driving in the nails. Doncha think?
The world cares because it SEEMS that any/everything MUST be put on the Internet. And then we must ALL WEEP, CRY, TEAR OUR HAIR. SO many people need a life.
Communists eating communists.
You gotta love this stuff.
Pop some more popcorn....
More a slap with the back of the wrist, I reckon.
RE: Carlos Slim should sell the NY Times and buy the LA Clippers.
Now, why didn’t I think of that?
The question is will Sterling sell?
Because the Slimes isn't left-wing enough.
She's a victim of her own arrogance. Pride IS the first of the seven deadly sins.
Review: pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, sloth.
But she allegedly was fired for "hiring" somebody from The Guardian.
That's a disconnect from your observations.
(I had thought The Guardian was making sense for a very brief period, too, and when it went back to total leftist, I assumed they terminated the one employee that lived in the real world.)
The newsroom from hell!!!
Their newsroom is full of gays and feminazis. Can you imaging the vicious gossip, infighting and backstabbing that must go on.
Pinch knew exactly what he was getting when her hired her 3 years ago.
This is just damage control for Sulzberger and the Leftist elites.
Now that the impudent skank got thrown out of the club, she has to be villified so that the decision is seen as righteous.
So they pillory her for the traits they hired her for.
! Good post!
I’m with you. Who cares. Let them eat their own.
If she sucked at her job, she might have moved up the ladder a little further! lol
As discredited as it has become all of the MSM still look up to the NYT.
I've always found their open involvement with themselves and each other amazing.
They will obsess over "a journalist" being killed in some war, much more than a local innocent.
Despite the fact that the journalists choose to put themselves into harm's way by going into the warzone in pursuit of their career. And the local child didn't.
This ties in with their apparent belief that they cause reality to come into existence by reporting it.
Full CYA mode. Hoisted on their own feminist-propaganda petard.
The Guardian is very leftist, but at least they have a few intelligent leftist writers. And there will occasionally be somebody with a different point of view.
Maybe she just wanted more intelligence in the newsroom?
Basquet strikes me as a typical black leftist dim bulb who only got ahead for his politics and his color. And he’s “nice” until you diverge from the line.
“she sounds like a frickin nightmare”
Sounds and is. Her sistory (not a mispelling) is legendary, as is her left wing adulation of The Clintons.
News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Sulzberger’s last straw: Fires Jill Abramson for misleading him about a new hire, livius wrote:
Strangely enough, during her tenure, I noticed that the print edition was getting a little more interesting. I actually saw a couple of articles (features) that did not cling to the radical leftist line
A story that didn’t give Obama regime a pass made it into the Times and was posted some time last week here in FR’s. Anybody worth their salt in the position she held knows the Times is having a cred problem particularly with its drastic and deserved drop in circ because of its of calcimine coverage. While a hire from The (UK’s) Guardian isn’t exactly The Telegraph it’s better than The Daily Mail. This aint over with. Let’s see what shakes down.
Whatever the truth is, it is amusing to see liberals boiling in a pot of their hipocrisy.
Has anyone considered that the Abramson firing is connected to Hillary? Maybe Jill was insufficiently enthusiastic about Hill. Women with a little power usually hate each other.
Interesting take. Never read the Times, so unfamiliar on how they have covered the old shrew.
I’ll bet a weeks pay Pinch was “placed on notice” by the White Hut to dump her. If Pinch keeps changing his story here, he’s going to be as bad a liar as Zippy.
Just a thought based on all the leftist dailies giving free subscriptions during presidential election campaigns.
Unreported campaign contributions to the Democrat Party. Free advertising.
I would think she would be happy to be free from “job lock”. Now she can go and pursue her creative side.
He’s rich enough to own both.
This woman co wrote a nasty book on Clarence Thomas.
A fitting ending for her high profile job.
She was incompetent and replaced by a minority male.
What goes around comes around.
If Abramson was as cavalier as described, she had no business being promoted to the post in the first place. If Pinch was as unaware as described, he's out of touch with the organization he's ultimately responsible for running.
The Times comes off as a place that is run by personalities committed to their own goals, not professional managers committed to the product.
I doubt any of this comes as a surprise to any objective Times watcher...