May 18, 2014

David Carr questions "whether The Times can convince female employees that it is a fair place to work, with ample opportunity to advance."

He writes that he has "heard from several talented young women who are a big part of The New York Times’s future." One said: “I really don’t see a path for me here... Are we O.K.?”

Carr also reveals — or this is the first place I've seen this — that Dean Baquet, the new executive editor, laid down an ultimatum to the publisher Arthur Sulzberger, saying "he would leave the paper because he found the situation untenable" (i.e., it's her or me).

ADDED: Do you get leverage to oust a white woman when you use a black man as your fulcrum?

43 comments:

Fen said...

Carr: "...but quite another to watch her head get chopped off in the cold light of day. The lack of decorum was stunning."

Seriously? Have you ever been in the room when someone's head was literally chopped off in the cold light of day?

Hyperbole much? But then, this is the Gray Whore.

YoungHegelian said...

I really don’t see a path for me here... Are we O.K.?

And where exactly are these women planning to go? They're at the top of the heap in a very troubled industry.

If I was one of these women who feel unloved at the NYT, I'd try RIGHT NOW to get an offer from a paper with money (e.g. the Wall Street Journal) before all the other ladies run for the exit.

This strikes me as an empty threat.

Fen said...

Carr: "...the sense of pride that we should all feel at his ascension — as a great, decorated journalist and the first black-"

It obvious you are only proud of Dean because of his skin color, which washes away any other good attributes he may have. Why do you care that he is black? It screams "diversty hire" in all caps.

Whats next? Will you be gushing that Dean is "mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy".

Should we be impressed that Dean learned how to wipe his own ass?

Fen said...

"The New York Times is the whole ballgame now, and his instinct to protect it has only increased."

Shorter: we are on life support. No one trusts us.

Fen said...

"It’s worth remembering that its legacy begets an excellence that surpasses the particulars of who produces it."

ie. harken back to the day when people actually respected us.

Fen said...

"managing editor who would eventually be swept up in the Jayson Blair affair, was interviewing me."

Yah, thats what we say when a manager is involved in a scandal - he was "swept up", like a helpless and naive little country boy.

Bob Boyd said...

Dean,

I have some good news and some really good news.
Effective immediately you're the new executive editor.
Don't worry. The paper will pay for your sex change operation.
Congratulations!

Pinch.

Fen said...

“I understand that if I come to work at The New York Times, the needs of the many will frequently supersede the needs of the one,”

Pivot from Jason Blair to plagiarizing Spock. Nice segue.

Bob Boyd said...

How long before we see Sulzberger holding up sign that says

#bringbackourgirls

Fen said...

Dear David Carr,

Here's what you're not getting from your little echo chamber: this is like watching the employees at Orwell's Minitru clutch their pearls because one of their fellow hacks was disappeared.

I hope every "journalist" at the NYTs meets the same fate. And I hope that you all starve to death. You are no different than the hacks that wrote crap for Pravda.

And as a courtesy - if the government ever falls, you and your ilk better go into hiding.

Lydia said...

There's also the matter of Sulzberger's son -- from NY Magazine:

"In the past six months, Arthur’s son, Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, has been leading a task force to prepare a report on the newsroom in the digital era, which was made public last week. It includes a panoply of mostly sensible suggestions — but the fact that the son of the publisher was interviewing Abramson's employees at a time when their relationship was in turmoil cannot have helped the situation. And Sulzberger's son, thought to be his probable successor, was by the end of his fact-finding intimately aware of feelings (and dysfunction) in the newsroom to an extent that has often eluded the Sulzbergers (most notably during the Raines era)."

Michael K said...

More popcorn, please.

Bob Boyd said...

Dean,

I almost forgot. Naturally, after the sex change your pay will be reduced per newspaper policy.
I know you're up speed on all that after the recent unpleasantness with Jill so I won't go in to details.

Again, Congrats!

Pinch.

glenn said...

See, we are the good people and we can do stuff like this because .... Bush ..... And Palin.

Skeptical Voter said...

Well let's see. The "First woman" at the New York Times was a flop, so she'll be replaced by the first black.

The first black at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has been a flippin' disaster---so now we're supposed to replace him with the "first woman".

Pardon me if I say, "I think not.".

kcom said...

Made me laugh, Bob. Spot on.

Zach said...

One said: “I really don’t see a path for me here... Are we O.K.?”

Since you've been covering every feminist angle in the Abramson story, I wonder if you'd care to comment on this quote.

Flying to pieces and demanding that everybody stop and comfort you is an extremely gendered type of bad behavior. Should we demand that she get it together and act like a grownup? Or does feminism always mean taking the woman's side, even when she's acting like a pill?

Estragon said...

Of course Baquet was upset. After being passed over for the EE job in favor of her, he finds out she is planning to install another outsider above him in the food chain, without consulting either him or apparently Sulzberger about it.

Baquet was editor of the LA Times. Abramson had never edited anything bigger than the Legal Times, her highest position since then had been Washington bureau chief for NYT more than a decade ago, until Pinch brought her back as managing editor, leapfrogging many more qualified people.

She was not an effective manager and it showed.

glenn said...

"I really don’t see a path for me here..."

Try subsistence farming.

William said...

Howell Raines was a far greater failure than Abramson, but he managed to fade away with more dignity. I don't know if this is prima feces evidence of sexism on Sulzberger's part, but none of this makes him look good. On the other hand, maybe Abramson could have read the writing on the wall and asked for an extra zero or two on her severance package in order make a graceful exit. I don't root for anyone in this case, but Sulzberger appears to be the biggest klutz.........I just hope those brutes in Nigeria don't do anything to harm their captives. That might cause the public to lose focus on this far more important sexual discrimination case. Maybe Abramson could use her connections to ransom and, perhaps, adopt one of the girls. That would generate favorable publicity for her and help wed her case with that of the Boko Haram kidnapping in the public mind.

Jason said...

So the guy who elevated Abramson to the top in the first place is sexist?

There's no pleasing libtards. They are the real sexists. There's nothing like the sacking of an executive to help effect a much needed round of promotions in an organization. It's not as if they were going to come from growth. If these Women think there's no path for them simply because Abramson was forced out, they only saw her as a walking vagina all along. No man could work for them and expect a fair shake. I'd get rid of them, too.

Jason said...

So the guy who elevated Abramson to the top in the first place is sexist?

There's no pleasing libtards. They are the real sexists. There's nothing like the sacking of an executive to help effect a much needed round of promotions in an organization. It's not as if they were going to come from growth. If these Women think there's no path for them simply because Abramson was forced out, they only saw her as a walking vagina all along. No man could work for them and expect a fair shake. I'd get rid of them, too.

Achilles said...

Criticizing the NYT for hiring and firing solely based on race and sex makes all of you racist and you are waging a war on women.

Progressive policies failed at the NYT because it was the WRONG progressives in charge. The next group of progressive leadership will do it right.

Just another in a long long list of failed progressive actions that had great intentions.

Brian McKim & Traci Skene said...

“I really don’t see a path for me here... Are we O.K.?”

It helps if you read that while doing a breathy, Marilyn Monroe impression.

The Times, worries Carr, might not be able to "convince female employees that it is a fair place to work, with ample opportunity to advance."

The Times, implies Carr, must convince female employees that each and every one of them will some day be the editor in chief.

Everyone associated with this embarrassment derby is, in ways both large and small, pathetic.

Bruce Hayden said...

Shorter: we are on life support. No one trusts us.

As I pointed out in a previous post, NYT online gets about 30x the page views of Powerline, and 10x the page views of Instapundit. The former is run by a small group of practicing attorneys in their spare time, and the latter, by a single law professor, in his spare time, except when he recruits replacements (like Anne) when he goes on vacation. They essentially do it for free, and don't make much, if any, money on it.

Meanwhile, the NYT pays its executive editor north of 1/3 million dollars a year, and apparently also supports a number of Sulzberger ner-do-wells. Along with paying for a bunch of other people with various job functions and titles. It is hard to believe that they will be able to survive with such an expensive operation, given the amount of free content available on the Internet, and how badly they have done in their online endeavors in the past. (Though, they do seem to be trying to address this with the next generation of Sulzbergers - would this one be "Greg", or some variation of Punch and Pinch?)

stlcdr said...

The liberal equality meme has painted itself into a corner.

grackle said...

… Mr. Sulzberger, working with Mr. Baquet and Mr. Thompson, may have failed to understand the impact Ms. Abramson’s firing would have, both internally and with the public.

Translation: Our owner is an idiot. So are his two brown-nosers.

Then, a few lines later tries to backtrack and make the owner look less like an imbecile:

People close to Mr. Sulzberger said that he was fully aware his decision would create an uproar, including charges of sexism, but that he made the announcement because it was right for the newspaper and the people who work there.

… this has become a grinding spectacle.

Yep. Here he must confess to the obvious.

The news set off a gleeful frenzy in Manhattan media, which usually have to subsist on fake New York Times controversies.

Fake? Earlier he was blabbing on about Jayson Blair, Howell Raines and a Mexican Millionaire. Here he quit too soon. He should've conitnued: … which usually have to subsist on fake New York Times controversies, such as ... and then named a few of those fake controversies. That he did not implies the opposite.

How did our workplace suddenly become a particularly bloody episode of “Game of Thrones”?

Offhand, I'd say the cause is mainly mismanagement by the owner.

We have a talented executive editor, a stable if challenged business outlook and a very dedicated audience.

The only thing that I believe in the above is the "dedicated audience" part. Diehard fans are a lifesaver – for awhile, anyway.

I guess he had to write something about this controversy, as proof of the NYT's impartiality(snicker). Given what we know so far I'd say he's done about as well as could be expected.

rhhardin said...

Form a women's workplace issues committee to give advice to management.

That's what usually happens when you hire women.

Martha said...

I revealed the Baquet ultimatum yesterday in the Bitch thread:

Martha said...
Dean Baquet threatened to leave the New York Times if Abramson were not removed. Pinch chose the Black editor over the woman. The bitch story is just cover.

5/18/14, 12:06 PM

I believe I had read that in a Dylan Byers Politico column. I also read that Jill is feeding info to the New Yorker and Pinch is feeding info to Politico so I guess Pinch wanted everyone to know Baquet made him do it: brutally fire Abramson

Paco Wové said...

"a great, decorated journalist"

Do New York Times journalists wear their medals during day to day office work, or only on official occasions?

Paco Wové said...

"a great, decorated journalist"

Or maybe he's decorated in the same sense that an interior may be decorated, with tasteful furnishings in harmonizing colors. His skin tone matched the Times's office decor better than Abramson's; she had to go.

Jerome said...

Fen: I've always liked "Ashen Tart."

Pookie Number 2 said...

It's fascinating that those in the best position to know have no confidence that the Times' relentless bloviation about equality for women will actually affect it's behavior.

SGT Ted said...

Well ladies, as long as you aren't a bitch and a lousy manager, you probably have a shot.

But, really. One incompetent, bitchy woman gets fired and we're supposed to see it as a huge setback on women's rights in the workplace? That the girls are all a-feared now of Not Getting Ahead?

Why is David Carr being such an Uncle Tim? Is he trying to sleep with some of the female staffers?

AJ Lynch said...

Fen- David Carr would just sputter "But but our Pulitzers" at you. Because that is really all they got while most of us have de-valued the worth of Pulitzers along with the Nobel Prizes.

Tank said...

"David Carr questions "whether The Times can convince female employees that it is a fair place to work, with ample opportunity to advance."

Life is not fair. Once you understand that, you can live a much happier, more productive life. You waste a lot less time agonizing over these kinds of questions.

Don't like your job, or think the boss in not "fair," go work somewhere else, or start your own "fair" company and let me know how that works out.

Big Mike said...

(She’ll have more opportunity on Monday when she gives the commencement speech at Wake Forest.)

I feel for the Wake Forest graduating class. The last thing they need on their biggest day is to listen to a bitter person unload on a former employer. Perhaps Abramson will be more grown up than David Carr suspects, but he does claim to know her.

Jay said...

I really don’t see a path for me here... Are we O.K.?

Considering you are working in a dinosaur industry at a company with declining revenues, no.

But I do rather enjoy the fact that apparently the real world is a bit too stressful for young women.

Hagar said...

If you don't like the way the Sulzbergers run their business, don't go to work for them.

Jupiter said...

“I really don’t see a path for me here... Are we O.K.?"

That's what I always say to my boss, when I want to make sure that me and all my friends are still on track to be CEO.

poker1one said...

Tank said,

"Don't like your job, or think the boss in not "fair," go work somewhere else, or start your own "fair" company and let me know how that works out."

Yes, yes, that is the equal opportunity for which they should be striving. I thought the same thing when the Sterling racism hit the fan and a black NBA player suggested there be an all-black basketball league. Yes, do it, for once, do it. What a difference you'll feel if you succeed.

cubanbob said...

"David Carr questions "whether The Times can convince female employees that it is a fair place to work, with ample opportunity to advance."

Really? What options do these woman have? It's not like there is a vast job pool of available jobs in left-wing media.
Indeed the prospects for all of the NYT employees outside the paper isn't great for the news and editorial staff. Long term the only salvation for the paper is new ownership.

tim in vermont said...

"Flying to pieces and demanding that everybody stop and comfort you is an extremely gendered type of bad behavior."

That is your male privilege talking. This privilege explainomatic works even better than that of evolutionary psychology.