And I said something similar, talking to Glenn Loury the other day about the NYT ousting the woman. This is only 17 seconds, so come on, don't be video averse. Watch this:
AND: Notice this detail from Ken Auletta's "Why Jill Abramson Was Fired: Part III," published yesterday in The New Yorker (boldface added):
Extremely well-informed sources at the paper familiar with the reasons for Abramson’s dismissal have also given this account to The New Yorker: they say that Abramson was, essentially, fired for cause, for lying to Sulzberger that she had squared Gibson’s rank and arrival with Baquet when, in fact, she had not. The sources say she misled Sulzberger when she said, in person and by e-mail, that she had consulted with Baquet about the offer to Gibson and had worked it all out in detail with him. Baquet was furious. At a dinner with Sulzberger, Baquet basically described the incident as a humiliation. He could no longer work with Abramson. It was him or her. (Politico reported that, when Sulzberger shared Baquet’s distress with Abramson, she persisted in assuring him that she had told Baquet everything.) According to this account, her breach with Baquet and Sulzberger was irrevocable. Sulzberger decided to fire Abramson and replace her with Baquet, thus making him the first African-American executive editor of the paper—but under the most sour, trying, and confused circumstances.Who are the "extremely well-informed sources"? Baquet? Sulzberger? Abramson? It would have to be at least 2 out of 3 of them for this all to be based on first-hand witnesses. In this version, there is a conflict in the story that was told about the job offer to Gibson, and one could have gone easy on Abramson and Baquet and said that perhaps the two had different understandings of what they were talking about when they talked about Gibson.
But we are told that Sulzberger fired Abramson for lying, and if that is true, it means that Sulzberger saw it as a direct conflict in which only one person could be telling the truth and the other was a liar, and he decided the liar was Abramson. Why?
If it was Baquet who said he'll leave if she stays, Sulzberger may have chosen to believe Baquet, because if he could only have one or the other, he wanted Baquet and/or he wanted Abramson out anyway. Deciding that Abramson was the liar not only worked to keep Baquet, it bolstered the cause for firing Abramson. So did Sulzberger decide that only Baquet was telling the truth (and not Abramson or both or neither) pursuit to a valid methodology of lie detection or was Sulzberger getting the staffing the way he wanted it anyway and the cover story as good as possible?
पोस्ट्स
३५ टिप्पण्या:
Reynolds is sniping at Hillary. So what young black man will run against Hillary for the nomination this time?
Warren would be one old white woman against another...a flat playing field.
Abrahamson and Baquet are basically the same age, and Baquet has been working in journalism a little longer than Abrahamson. He should have been selected for the Executive Editor job over Abrahamson three years ago. If Abrahamson had worked out, Baquet would have been too old to take over by the time Abrahamson willingly stepped down. Hillary's 14 years old than Obama and in 2008 looked 25 years older than him. She's old enough to be Rubio and Jindahl's mom.
This is only 17 seconds, so come on, don't be video averse.
This is only 17 seconds, so come on, don't be transcript averse.
What this country needs is about half a million black lesbians to run things. Who could possibly be better qualified?
"As we know from experience, in the world of Democratic Party institutions, the choice between an older white woman and a younger black man is an easy one."
Here, as elsewhere, drawing large conclusions from a dataset consisting of two examples is a bit foolish. What we know about Dem Party institutions is that (a) they all focus on group rights, which often trump individual rights; and (b) any group that can claim the status of victim gets bonus points. O's success in 2008, and Abramson's failure in 2014, don't have anything in common, least of all some built-in 'preference' that influenced the results.
How the group-rights battles work out in practice within the Dem Party is not easy to predict -- the California experience on reversing the ban on affirmative action preferences at UCal, based on protests by Asian-Am parents, is a case in point. Similarly, one could cite the ability of (mostly) white lefty enviro groups to trump the interests of labor unions regarding the Keystone Pipeline.
When the interests of various groups of importance to Dem Party prospects clash, as they inevitably do, it's anyone's guess which one will prevail. As WRMead says, its all about the breakdown of the 'blue social model,' and all you can really say with confidence is that it's breakdown is unavoidable.
What Smilin' Jack said.
I can't think which would be worse, hiring a lawyer to make "polite inquiries" or issuing "Her or me" ultimatums.
I can't believe these are the only two people qualified to transcribe Democrat Party talking points.
Can you imagine a white, male reporter at the NYT being quoted sympathetically as having fretted, “I really don’t see a path for me here... Are we O.K.?”
Maybe we'll get to find out where a female native American fits in the trump card contest.
In 2008, progressives (whether consciously or unconsciously) felt they had a choice: be seen as racist or misogynistic. To be seen as racist was greater of two evils, so misogynistic it was.
And no, it's not her turn.
But suppose that Baquet is just more "likeable"?
Is that term above or below the normal feminist hearing range?
The inherent problems with identity group politics are becoming apparent. After the incident where California legislatures of Asian descent killed a bill that would have reinstated racial quotas for college admissions because it would have reduced the number of slots available for Americans with Asian ancestors I saw an article with an argument that was rather silly.
Written by an Asian American, essentially it argued that African Americans had suffered and fought for the rights we (or rather they as in non-white Americans) have today and therefore the legislators should support the bill out of gratitude. It is a silly argument for many reasons.
1) Number one is of course that the world don't work that way. Once you start handing out goodies on the basis of race or any other identity (religion, sex, ethnicity, what gender you feel you are) people are going to organize along those lines and start working on getting those goodies for themselves because it is in their self-interest to do so. And in this fallen world self-interest is king.
2) Because some African Americans worked to advance the cause of civil rights in the past then Asian Americans should have to suffer right now and into perpetuity? What he is trying to do is shame the legislators into compliance. Apparently the legislators did not get the memo telling them that they are somehow complicit in slavery and civil rights abuses that occurred in the past when their ancestors had no power to stop them whatsoever.
3) Related to 2 - a lot of white people worked to end slavery and civil rights abuses, some even died for that cause, shouldn't their descendants be entitled to preferential treatment in college admissions too? Should we trace peoples' family trees and give 10 more points to people who can prove their ancestors fought for the Union? Twenty points if one of the ancestors died? Of course not, the idea is ridiculous.
So why is it OK to credit blacks with the work done by others in the past that their ancestors' may or may not have had a part of?
The answer is, of course, that blacks are still suffering the effects of slavery and discrimination and thus are owed restitution. But the next question then is, owed by who?
The moral concept that the descendants of the people who imposed the suffering are morally bound to help the descendants of those who suffered to recover from the lasting effects of that suffering even if it requires sacrifice is at least reasonable.
But the descendants of people who were in no way culpable?
And if the argument is that blacks are still discriminated against?
What privileges their suffering above that of Asian Americans?
Interesting post. I expect he chose the best liar in keeping with the objectives of the brand.
Specific cases aside Glenn is alluding to the obvious PC hierarchy where race trumps gender.
Of course rights based on group identity is a formula for perpetual strife and hatred.
This is only 17 seconds, so come on, don't be video averse.
I'd watch it, but it doesn't show up on my iPad.
Microaggressor!
So who do you suppose is the worse boss - Abramson or Sulzberger?
I don't know, Ann, it seems pretty clear who is lying if Abramson is saying "I cleared it with Baquet, we discussed it, he's fine with it" and Baquet is saying, "This is b.s., I can't stand this situation, I'll quit over it."
Unless you want to believe he changed his mind, and you can think of a reason he would, the very nature of the complaint proves the lie. Doesn't it?
Doesn't it matter if she really DID lie? If she did, it is no longer a choice between one or the other -- it is between a liar and a not-liar.
" This is only 17 seconds, so come on, don't be video averse"
So against my better judgment I click, because not only is video generally a waste of time but Bloggingheads almost never works. And inevitably I get: "Server not found: rtmp://s326cznbk8v70e.cloudfront.net:1935/cfx/st/"
Whatever. Last time I bother. And what the heck is an rtmp anyway?
"I don't know, Ann, it seems pretty clear who is lying if Abramson is saying "I cleared it with Baquet, we discussed it, he's fine with it" and Baquet is saying, "This is b.s., I can't stand this situation, I'll quit over it." Unless you want to believe he changed his mind, and you can think of a reason he would, the very nature of the complaint proves the lie. Doesn't it?"
No, it's not clear. For one thing, Baquet had every reason to be pissed that Gibson was coming in to serve in his territory, whether he was consulted or not. He had reason to be mad at Abramson and he benefited from her leaving. He'd been a competitor for the top job when she got it. He had reason to misrepresent the facts (even on the sub-lying level of characterizing what "consulting him" really means.. it depends).
She had an interest in defending herself and making up the contention that she consulted him or relying on a characterization of the facts that whatever she did constituted "consulting him."
It's he said/she said and the decision to go with "he" was made by Sulzberger. Why?
SOJO said...
Abramson's image meanwhile, has been burned into my brain."
Bad news, there isn't enough Scotch in the world to unburn it. Or unhear that voice. Sheesh.
BTW, Abramson is good at the journalism game, judging from the current game. The NYT is helpless and hopeless.
It is unusual for an employer to affirmatively declare one person a liar in a he said/she said situation. So Pinch went out of his way to brand Abramson a liar (apparently clueless as to the isuse of whether it damages his product to declare his exalated executive editor a liar). It was not necessary, but he chose to do so either because he is stupid or because he wanted to.
I suspect these are three marginally competent individuals, Pinch in his job because of inheritance, and the other two in their jobs to some extent due to affirmative action. I have not seen much of Abramson, and nothing of Baquet, but when I have seen Abramson I have not been impressed.
Baquet seems like a petulant and arrogant fellow - threatening to resign.
Well, if Baquet had agreed to the new person being installed as an equal and then changed his mind and acted as though he had never been consulted then he is the perfect hire regardless of the truth. He is able to lie with a straight face, with indignation! Perfect.
"It's he said/she said and the decision to go with "he" was made by Sulzberger. Why?"
Because he didn't like Abramson?
I don't know how it is in academia, but in business most split decisions are decided on this basis.
"Because he didn't like Abramson? I don't know how it is in academia, but in business most split decisions are decided on this basis."
The decision referenced is the decision that one person is lying and the other isn't, not that one person got a job and the other was out, which is a usual thing in business. It's that extra step of saying Abramson lied when it's hard to see why hers was the lie that I am talking about. Her LYING is presented as the cause for firing (perhaps because of the great interest in suppressing the accusation that the cause was a demand for equal pay).
Want to have fun with "liberals"? (And by "liberals" I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted State-fellators.") Ask them, one at a time, who'd they vote for in a presidential race between Hillary Clinton and, say, Thomas Sowell. The moment the syllable "Hil-" leaves their lips, scream a Sam Kinnison-like "RACIST!!!" point-blank in their face.
Turnabout, fair-play, taste of own medicine, etc., etc.
Want to have fun with "liberals"? (And by "liberals" I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted State-fellators.") Ask them, one at a time, who'd they vote for in a presidential race between Hillary Clinton and, say, Thomas Sowell. The moment the syllable "Hil-" leaves their lips, scream a Sam Kinnison-like "RACIST!!!" point-blank in their face.
Turnabout, fair-play, taste of own medicine, etc., etc.
I think Ann is correct that in the liberal world, you can dump the white woman for the black male, without too much fear of consequences.
As to the dishonesty issue, Sulzberger may be clueless, or he may live in a world where he always gets to do what he wants, but I still see no benefit in him branding Abramson a liar and establishing that at at least one of his two top people was a liar. He instead could have decribed it as a performance/relationship problem.
Now, the debate will never end as to which Times editor was a liar. No doubt, Abramson at some point will defend herself, insuring another round of bad publicity for the Times.
It is fun to watch these three, who oversee false/biases accusations on a daily basis against their political opponents, wallow in the glare of their own dishonesty in a situation involving a recruit who actually turned down a job offer.
People are ignoring Baquet in this story. He essentially fired Abramson by saying it was either him or her, in his petulance over allegedly not being informed about the job offer to another person. He seems like a jerk. Sulzberger seems like a weak stick. Abramson seems like a bitch.
Ann is correct that it is possible Sulzberger thought accusing Abramson of dishonesty would strengthen the defense against an retaliation claim. It likely would be a foolish approach, at least in terms of defense of a lawsuit. Falsely accusing a plaintiff of dishonesty makes your problems worse in defending a claim.
In this case, I cannot imagine there is not a severance agreement in which Abramson has been paid off in return for a release of claims and promise not to sue. Even the Times is not so stupid as to allow this to unfold as it has if there was a risk of litigation. If the agreement was signed before Sulzberger effectively accuased Abramson of dishonesty, she still could sue for defamation.
Nice analysis, Professor.
As you point out, the debate about who lied is not relevant. Based on the facts we know, no third party, including Sulzberger can be sure.
It is interesting that the arrogant and probably chickenshit Sulzberger apparently assumed that some would accept his omniscience as a given in the "fired for cause" story, if he is in fact behind its release.
It certainly seems apparent that Baquet's whining was a major factor in this brouhaha.
Maybe Baquet threatened to punch Pinch instead of the wall if Pinch did not believe his story that Jill had not informed him of the pending Gibson co-managing editor hire.
We are in the middle of a reality show--- Masthead Men and Woman of the New York Times.
hombre, you are right that the debate over who lied is not relevant, at least in the sense of being unecessary for Sulzberger to get into. But it is interesting that he chose to wade into it. It just invites retribution by Abramson as some point, probably even if it is true. As noted, I also found it tone deaf for Sulzbeger to think a debate over which of his editors is a liar somewhow is good for his paper.
AA's analysis imputes high level sophistication and inductive reasoning to Pinch Sulzberger. However, nothing that he's said publicly or anything that's been written about him during his tenure as NYT publisher is corroborative. He's always struck me as a mindless throwback 60's leftist who got a real nice present from his daddy for his 41st birthday.
A few thoughts:
1. If Jill really is the consummate infighter (or reporter), she would have created some written record of her conversation with Bequet. A confirming email or even just a short note to her file. It's pretty doubtful she would have a conversation of such consequence without confirming. I would view the absence of any writing as important evidence.
2. The lie, if it was a lie, was really stupid. She had to know Bequet would expose the lie. She also should have expected that Sulzberger would side with Bequet.
So this means that Jill probably was lying, right?
No. It means that one of three people is lying (and doing it via leaks.) Sulzberger could be the liar. He can then also lie that he made the leak, if Bequet has the balls to say "what-the-fuck" (assuming the untruth of what Sulzberger is saying.)
So many weasels behind that curtain.
As I've said before, it was a major tactical error to try to push Baquet out by hiring someone to duplicate his job.
Sulzberger has already chosen Abramson over Baquet. He can't publicly change his mind without a crisis or precipitating event. Baquet can't force a crisis, because then he's out -- Sulzberger has to side with his choice when she's challenged.
Trying to push Baquet out creates Baquet's dream scenario -- a crisis that he didn't start. Now he can threaten to leave in a way that doesn't poison the well if Sulzberger sides with him.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा