Sure, losing a job you love hurts, but the work I revere, journalism that holds powerful institutions and people accountable, is what makes our democracy so resilient. This is the work I will remain very much a part of.... What's next for me? I don't know!Well, I kind of think I know. You're going to continue the work you love — the work you revere — by holding the powerful institution that is the New York Times and the powerful person who is Arthur Sulzberger Jr. accountable. That is the work that makes our democracy so resilient, the work you're obviously already very much a part of.
And nice job, so far, Jill. You're demonstrating, from the outside of the NYT, how good you are at the work they ousted you from, the work as you define it, holding powerful institutions and people accountable. They didn't like the way you did it from the inside, and they're not going to like the way you do it from the outside.
Carry on!
पोस्ट्स
५७ टिप्पण्या:
Ann wrote:
And nice job, so far, Jill. You're demonstrating, from the outside of the NYT, how good you are at the work they ousted you from, the work as you define it, holding powerful institutions and people accountable. They didn't like the way you did it from the inside, and they're not going to like the way you do it from the outside.
Carry on!
Jesus,I sure hope that is sarcasm.
Sounds as much like Abrahmson was held accountable. Master thyself, then others shall thee bear.
I'd be FAR more impressed with her dedication to "holding powerful institutions and people accountable" if the NYT under her leadership had shown even a little more curiosity regarding the IRS, Benghazi, etc.
" journalism that holds powerful institutions and people accountable"
aka
journalism that holds Republicans accountable
because, Jill? You suck.
Moxie. It's rare but its presence is unmistakable. It stands out like a red flower in the middle of a green meadow.
... the work I revere, journalism that holds [some] powerful institutions and [some] people accountable, is what makes our democracy so resilient.
Fixed that up.
Internecine blow-ups aside don't we all know which side she's on? But some is better than none.
Too bad she didn't resign first. If only she were a government employee she could have the golden parachute known as early retirement.
It still doesn't sound good to get canned by the monks that picked you.
Never pick a fight with a people who buy ink by the barrel.
Jill must get herself some barrels of ink or gigabytes on the internet or hours of airtime on Fox News.
Every time I was promoted into a higher level position, I did not expect to paid at the same rate of the person I replaced. Every job has a wide salary range. As time passes in that position, annual reviews take place, and depending on PEFORMANCE, an increase in pay is awarded. There is not one salary point for every position.
This is typical for every private company for which I was employed.
" journalism that holds powerful institutions and people accountable"
Not to pile on, but really?
If she has a contract it will have a provision for a payment of multiple years of income for termination without cause. Termination for cause is difficult to prove and invites litigation. The publisher has indicated that this was a for-cause action and thus is setting the table for no payments to Abramson. She and her lawyers will see it differently.
Abramson, for the record, is not a senior executive of New York Times Co. She is not a named executive. She may not have a contract with the provisions mentioned above.
She's got that hand firmly on the tiller!
You know, speech is a marketplace. If the NYT fails to go after liberals, other newspapers have an opportunity. They should do a better job of taking that opportunity. The NYT does what it does, which is good up to a point. I monitor what it does and push back just about every day. They're allowed to pick the things they want to go after. They are speakers in the marketplace and there are many other speakers. They aren't the government.
Reading too much into that statement. It was a reference to the journalism that some find treasonous, I think.
"The NYT does what it does, which is good up to a point. I monitor what it does and push back just about every day. They're allowed to pick the things they want to go after. They are speakers in the marketplace and there are many other speakers."
Agreed, however, People Magazine and Soap Opera Digest also do what they do, which is good up to a point -- and, accordingly, they receive a level of respect (or disrespect) in the marketplace. Neither are accepted as the definitive source for news. The NYT should no longer be accepted as the definitive source for news either.
Where is the evidence that Abrahmson isn't just another example of the Peter principle, elevated one step above her abilities.
From a marketplace view, they are not doing well. Kids are not growing up like Abrahmson with the Times as their Bible, nor are they going to pay for the Times on-line content. It's pretty much the same for most newspapers. They have a lot of overhead from the legacy days. It makes it hard to adapt quickly enough, even if that is possible. It's basically a family business, as many newspapers were until recently. If the Sulzberger family didn't control the company, Sulzberger would be fired. If he had any decency, he would resign.
I'd heard so many complaints about her voice, I checked the video just to see how bad it was. In 30 seconds, I thought it sounded pretty normal, except for an excessive amount of vocal fry.
I've been fired from an executive position in a small company at a point when the company wasn't doing well. It happened when my boss, the CEO of this company, got fired. Executives get fired all the time, even some who've done a good job.
David in Cal
"Ann Althouse said...
You know, speech is a marketplace. If the NYT fails to go after liberals, other newspapers have an opportunity. They should do a better job of taking that opportunity. The NYT does what it does, which is good up to a point. I monitor what it does and push back just about every day. They're allowed to pick the things they want to go after. They are speakers in the marketplace and there are many other speakers. They aren't the government."
Ann, let me introduce you to a new acronym: "MSM". It stands for the main stream media, "other newspapers," are no different in their hackery than the NYT, and since it's a dying media no one is going to step in an take another position.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"
She's just playing right into the stereotype. Next she'll be demanding extra leave for PMS and menopause.
"They're allowed to pick the things they want to go after."
Sure, but when they utter self-congratulatory tripe like "journalism that holds powerful institutions and people accountable", we're "allowed" to laugh at them.
Yup. This is one of those football games where you root for the stadium to collapse on both teams.
Ann, your comment at 2:02 is acceptable to a point. I agree that, like any business, it may make decisions about what products it offers. However, their motto is "All the news that is fit to print". NYT does a poor job of living up to that motto. Their operating principle seems more like " All the news we see fit to print". You have to concede ( see I can use that phrase, too) that there have been large and notorious gaps in their coverage of Democratic affairs, whereas the coverage of Republican transgressions are timely and complete.
We are foolish to think that newspapers in this country have ever been impartial. However few papers have been as hypocritical about their approach to the news as the modern NYT.
AReasonableMan said...
Where is the evidence that Abrahmson isn't just another example of the Peter principle, elevated one step above her abilities.
Not to be argumentative, but how do we know it was just one step above her abilities?
We always just assume that someone who fails the first time does not continue to "fail up".
I thought her vocal pattern was very similar to Maureen Dowd's.
Frankly, I think complaints about the voice sound sexist.
"whereas the coverage of Republican transgressions are timely and complete."
Whether or not those transgressions actually occurred (John McCain's "affair", Karl Rove's manufactured quote that he didn't care about Iraqi casualties, etc.)
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
I thought her vocal pattern was very similar to Maureen Dowd's.
Frankly, I think complaints about the voice sound sexist.
5/19/14, 2:35 PM
----
Complaints about a voice would be vocalist.
"fivewheels said...
I'd heard so many complaints about her voice, I checked the video just to see how bad it was. In 30 seconds, I thought it sounded pretty normal, except for an excessive amount of vocal fry."
Probably because it was scripted. Listen to her here...try not to blow your brains out.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/festival/2013/10/fit-to-print-jill-abramson-and-ken-auletta.html
You also get to hear her use the word "examinating" LOL 3:10
A lot of the usual whining about the MSM from right-wingers. They really are boring.
I thought her vocal pattern was very similar to Maureen Dowd's.
Frankly, I think complaints about the voice sound sexist.
'Sexist' is a complete bullshit, ad hominem term, monkey-flung out as a substitute for a substantive counter-argument. It should be beneath you, but apparently isn't.
That's some serious reading between the lines.
I was one of the people who joked about her voice here at Althouse.
Sexist? I disagree. Wasn't there a famous silent film actor (Valentino?) who had audiences laughing when he first appeared in a talkie and his voice was high and squeakish?
You can call it sexism - I call it reality. Having a voice of authority, whether male or female, is one more tool in a leader or executive's toolbox.
And you can train your voice. You can lose an accent (or most of it).
" Frankly, I think complaints about the voice sound sexist."
Exactly! If that same voice was produced by a manly man it wouldn't be objectionable at all!
Actually the NY Times is much like the government in that it attacks conservatives and protects liberals.
Alex: "A lot of the usual whining about the MSM from right-wingers. They really are boring."
LOL
Left wing rag congratulates itself for being all about speaking truth to power.
Right wing notices that the left wing rag does no such thing when it comes to lefties in power.
Left winger whines that the right wing is whining by simply noting the obvious.
It will ever be thus.
Julie C: "Wasn't there a famous silent film actor (Valentino?) who had audiences laughing when he first appeared in a talkie and his voice was high and squeakish?"
I think you mean Jean Hagen as Lina Lamont in "Singin' in the Rain"
'Sexist' is a complete bullshit, ad hominem term, monkey-flung out as a substitute for a substantive counter-argument. It should be beneath you, but apparently isn't.
Get used to it. Its the new black:
Criticism of Obama: Racist!
Criticism of Hillary: Sexist!
Its the only card in their deck. Can't you just wait? All we need now is for a gay president after Hillary to complete the usual chant:
Homophobe!
Racist! Sexist! Homophobe!
oh my!
Sometimes I think our host has slipped a mental cog--and this is one of those times. I don't see Jill Ambramson as a champion of virtue. She lost in a corporate power struggle--welcome to the real world. The battlefield is littered with casualties. Same thing happens in non-corporate institutional settings--like college faculties.
And if complaints about a woman's voice are "sexist", what would Ms. Althouse do with a line that Dennis Miller uttered in the 2008 Democrat primary campaign. There was a sound clip of Hillary sounding particularly shrill. Miller observed, "She sounds like my first ex wife."
Men around the country doubled up with laughter at the line--I suspect Ms. Althouse would have a different reaction to the "humor".
For the record I think that the New York Times--like many of the journalistic institutions in the country --has done a crummy job in the last dozen years. And Ms. Abramson was at the helm of the Times for a significant part of that period. In the Navy if a captain runs his/her ship aground, their career is over, kaput, fini.
Abramson's denoument was just, albeit sloppily handled. Pinch alleges that he counseled her often about issues, but she just wouldn't listen. When you've finally had it, you bring the person in; tell them they're "gone", offer them a going away party with champagne and a chance to talk to the troops. Maybe the "can-ee" says okay, I'll do that; or maybe they say "Up yours Pinch!" In that case you call in the Department Heads and say "She's gone". End of story.
So I had to hear her voice myself to see if I was sexist or not, and I came away not having a problem so much with her voice as much as her overly preachy habit of stretching of words at the end of sentences, especially ones that end in 's'. Kind of like a certain constitutional professor we know who works in DC.
Is Jill gay? I don't think so but she could come out. That would help.
Stupid kidding aside, it will be interesting to see what she does. And also Maureen Dowd.
We have not heard from Peggy Noonan on this yet either. That should be fun.
And please, someone ask Hillary Clinton what she thinks of this. In public for the record.
Drago - Actually, I meant silent film actor John Gilbert, who supposedly had a fairly light voice that didn't match with his silent film tough guy aura. There were some female actresses who also had trouble making the shift due to foreign accents.
I would venture that human beings prefer not to be squeaked at, squawked at, screeched at, and screamed at, whether it's a male or female doing the squeaking, squawking, or screaming. Unless you are in the bird exhibit at the zoo.
The longer Jill keeps this up, the less likely women will be promoted to such high profile jobs. Who wants to deal with the public fallout if you have to fire her?
The NYT does what it does, which is good up to a point... They're allowed to pick the things they want to go after. They are speakers in the marketplace...
Except that the NYT and Wapo (and to an ever-lesser extent the Big 3 networks) are the coverage leaders. Stories on their respective front pages ( or nightly or '60 Minutes' segments)set the narratives and coverage assignments for smaller outlets nationally far more so than the news judgment of regional papers like the Dallas Morning News, Denver Post or Eyewitness News.
...All we need now is for a gay president after Hillary to complete the usual chant:...
Better yet:
All we need now is for a gay, 90yo black, female to run for president after Hillary to earn the all-encompassing chant for a single candidate:
Racist! Sexist! Agist! Homophobe!
I'd vote her president for life just so we wouldn't have to deal with identity-politics as a presidential qualifier again...nah...progressives would invent some new schism to exploit.
Followup would be a gay, black, 90 yo female cyborg to run for president:
Racist! Sexist! Agist! Homophobe! Machinist!
Righteous brother Dean Baquet just struck a blow against the Mighty Whitey AND j*w-run media all rolled into one.
Solid!
"Ann, your comment at 2:02 is acceptable to a point. I agree that, like any business, it may make decisions about what products it offers. However, their motto is "All the news that is fit to print". NYT does a poor job of living up to that motto. Their operating principle seems more like " All the news we see fit to print". You have to concede ( see I can use that phrase, too) that there have been large and notorious gaps in their coverage of Democratic affairs, whereas the coverage of Republican transgressions are timely and complete."
Their motto, their definition of fitness.
Not that there is anything wrong with skewering them on their own purported standard.
Anyway, what was the original meaning of that motto? Wasn't it about not printing gory or scurrilous material?
Complaining about a voice is sexist - 'ceptin' for that dumb Palin chick.
Is it sexist to posit Jill Abramson looks like a cross between Alfred E. Newman and early depictions of Huckleberry Finn?
"'All the news that's fit to print' first appeared on an illuminated advertising sign, spelled out in red lights above New York's Madison Square in early October 1896."
That was about six weeks after Adolph S Ochs had acquired the New York Times in bankruptcy court.
Ochs, patriarch of the family that still controls and publishes the newspaper, had come to the city from Tennessee.
His task was to differentiate the Times from its larger, more aggressive, and wealthier rivals - notably the yellow press of William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer.
Hundreds of entries poured in. Many of them were forgettable turns of phrase, such as:
"Full of meat, clean and neat"
"Cheerful, clean, with glossy sheen"
"As bright as a star and there you are"
"The people's voice, the good choice"
"Yours neatly, sweetly and completely"
As the contest unfolded in the fall of 1896, the New York Times amended the rules making clear it would not abandon its motto, but would still pay $100 for the best suggestion.
And entries kept coming in.
A committee of the newspaper's staff narrowed the field to 150, which in turn was winnowed to four by the motto contest judge, Richard W Gilder, editor of The Century magazine. The finalists were:
"Always decent; never dull"
"The news of the day; not the rubbish"
"A decent newspaper for decent people"
"All the world's news, but not a School for Scandal"
The latter entry, Gilder determined, was the best of the lot, and the New York Times paid the prize money to the author of the phrase, DM Redfield of New Haven, Connecticut.
What exactly prompted Ochs to move "All the news that's fit to print" to the front page 115 years ago is not entirely clear.
But his intent was unmistakable: to throw down a challenge to the yellow press, a challenge that Ochs ultimately won. The New York Times has long outlived the New York newspapers of Hearst and Pulitzer.
Ok Althouse, in Abramson's favor:
She has produced and nurtured quality journalism and she has a vision for the Times which likely raises it above Brit Tabloidism and pay per click advertising.
She cares about her paper, and probably about the people she works with. The Times is a newsmaker and collected source of a lot of experience and ahem...even wisdom, if ideologically and often obliviously she lives in a bubble.
Against her:
She probably couldn't do the job that well and was pissing people off in the newsroom. Happens every day. The industry is in turmoil and she apparently couldn't hack it.
This gives women who can do their jobs a bad name, and also the culture at the Times.
You've already pointed out their hypocrisy.
A good leader does the job and still might get canned. She didn't even get that far.
Her book and her reputation for good writing and good journalism also took advantage of ideological predispositions that she shares with others in her bubble.
This can affect all of us.
Maybe someone will write an expose about her the way she did Clarence Thomas, whatever Thomas' faults.
In America there is a well-known pattern of families earning great wealth and power and losing it in three generations. "Shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations"* is an American expression for a reason.
The Sulzbergers are in the last generation of their fortune and power.
*No word on a similar pants-related saying, btw.
I don't know much about Abramson's work, but has she ever accomplished anything significant in terms of work "that holds powerful institutions and people accountable?"
Bitch bites hand of man who no longer feeds her?
I don't know much about Abramson's work, but has she ever accomplished anything significant in terms of work "that holds powerful institutions and people accountable?"
She dogged Clarence Thomas didn't she?
I listened to the whole thing — here — so you don't have to.
Thank you, ma'am.
Too bad you refused to hold Obama accountable for anything, Ms. Abramson; it might've been fun....
"Pinch" is about to be pinched!
Hey, if she didn't hold Barry and His Administration (not a great name for a band) to task...?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा