Althouse: "Could there have been room for a simple misunderstanding, rather than that Abramson deliberately misled Baquet or Sulzberger?"

May 27, 2014

"Could there have been room for a simple misunderstanding, rather than that Abramson deliberately misled Baquet or Sulzberger?"

"It would make no sense, Abramson’s friends say, for her to send Baquet to lunch with Gibson without having told Baquet about the job offer. (In either scenario, a close friend of hers added, 'it’s just plain ridiculous that she should be fired for not telling a subordinate about a job offer to another subordinate.') To accept that Baquet first heard about the job offer from Gibson at lunch is to assume that Abramson, who has been amply criticized this week for her blunt, confrontational approach toward Times employees, would recoil from confronting Baquet."

More details from Ken Auletta on the firing of Jill Abramson.

11 comments:

Craig Landon said...: What's the opposite of Billboard's "with a bullet" for a news story? What ever it is, this is a good example of it.; 5/27/14, 9:49 PM
cubanbob said...: The comments at the New Yorker are far more interesting than the article itself. Actually why anyone would care why this woman set herself up to be fired might be interesting in a train-wreck sort of way but that isn't in the article.; 5/27/14, 11:28 PM
lgv said...: What difference, at this point, does it make?

Sulzberger wanted her out, she's out.

The micro aggression against Baquet was the final straw.; 5/28/14, 5:14 AM
donald said...: I didn't need to read past "Brilliant journalist".; 5/28/14, 6:27 AM
Big Mike said...: What is the inconsistency between it making no sense and Abramson would doing it anyway?; 5/28/14, 6:36 AM
Larry J said...: At this point, who gives a damn?; 5/28/14, 7:24 AM
RecChief said...: time to move on; 5/28/14, 8:42 AM
Left Bank of the Charles said...: To cross recent threads, was Abramson (the white woman) afraid to have a closed-door conversation with Baquet (the black man)?

The smoking gun may be the Jill Abramson email to the NYT CEO Mark Thomspon on April 25 in which she expresses her dread for cluing Dean Baquet into her plan to hire Janine Gibson:

"I expect this will be a fraught conversation. Because Dean is hard to really read. I probably won’t know how he really feels or reacts."; 5/28/14, 10:52 AM
paul a'barge said...: is to assume that Abramson, who has been amply criticized this week for her blunt, confrontational approach toward Times employees, would recoil from confronting Baquet

this. Times 10. +1. Straight up.

Abramson was fired for doing her job.; 5/28/14, 11:56 AM
Anonymous said...: I am still convinced that Baquet got Jill fired. Yes, he did to her, what Obama did to Hillary! It is that simple. And, the publisher, Arthur Pinch, he is such a dolt that no one would hire him, if he was not from "the family." Jill was the star of the NYT leadership. I often disagreed with her, when they did not vet Obama in 2008. But, as a leader, she was fine. Just the sort you want. A guy in her place would have bee referred to as: J. W. of journalism (where J.W., you guessed it right, refers to John Wayne).

This episode will lead to a term: Pulling a Baquet.; 5/28/14, 6:04 PM
Zach said...: It would make no sense, Abramson’s friends say, for her to send Baquet to lunch with Gibson without having told Baquet about the job offer. (In either scenario, a close friend of hers added, 'it’s just plain ridiculous that she should be fired for not telling a subordinate about a job offer to another subordinate.')

It is, of course, not ridiculous at all to conceal from a rival the fact that you have taken steps to replace them. And even less ridiculous for the rival to be upset when that happens.; 5/28/14, 7:01 PM