In a sudden move this week, The New York Times announced the firing of its executive editor Jill Abramson. Bob speaks with The New Yorker's Ken Auletta about why Abramson was fired.
The NY Times has challenged some of the claims regarding Abramson's firing, such as her compensation (http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/questions-linger-after-jill-abramsons-dismissal-from-times/2014/05/15/be5374d2-dc76-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html). I hope OTM will examine these issues in future shows.
Great comment, Zulu. This is the inner US media circles at play. Bill Keller before her was not any better especially when he assailed Julian Assange in a very primitive and aggressive way despite being in bed with US Govt media games. It is a storm in a tea cup and the adage of "what goes around comes around" rings truer as ever. I don't read NYT from the time of its war propaganda blitz on Iraq. This paper has no credibility and is utterly corrupt.
It was disappointing that Bob Garfield accepted all of Ken Auletta's remarks without question. His statement that Abramson received lower pay than men in her position was refuted by the Times on Thursday. And I don't understand Auletta's insistence that Abramson's nastiness as a boss - which everyone apparently accepts as fact - would have been acceptable if she were a man. How can he or anyone else who didn't work there with her judge how egregious her behavior was compared to men in her position? She sounded like a terrible boss, and if I had to work under a boss like that I think I would have been delighted to see the boss fired whether a man or a woman. In addition, Auletta criticizes how they handled the firing, referring to this as firing her "summarily." For all he knows, they have tried to work on her unpleasant management style for years. Sulzberger & co tried to say very little about why they were firing her, but reporters - particularly Ken Auletta - immediately began writing that the firing involved sexism and unequal pay, which then obliged Sulzberger & co to defend themselves by explaining their decision. Auletta forced them to handle it less discreetly by writing statements that appear to have been false. Of course, I never understood her promotion after reading her puppy diaries - most annoying, boring articles I ever saw in the NY Times.
Email addresses are required but never displayed.
On The Media is funded, in part, by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation,
the Overbrook Foundation and the Jane Marcher Foundation.