When Abramson became executive editor of the New York Times in August 2011, just one of the eight newsroom masthead editor jobs was held by a woman. I reported in January that four of the then-nine jobs were held by women.More here.
By the time Abramson was fired last week, that number had increased to five, and Abramson had been trying to hire another woman, Janine Gibson, as co-managing editor for digital.
२३ मे, २०१४
"Was Jill Abramson fired because she hired too many women?"
Richard Johnson asks.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४१ टिप्पण्या:
Any speculation into WHY she was fired should stop until we can confirm or debunk the stated reason she was fired.
I'm pretty sure that Althouse isn't into Mad Men but that's where I first heard the word "gynecocracy" so the show has its uses for those of us who aren't up to speed.
Publishers convince their Editors that they have eyes everywhere and that even their thoughts are not safe,' adding that if an Editor's self-esteem, self-worth, hope, and belief in humanity have all been deflated, 'then she cannot conceptualize life beyond the New York Times.'"
"Was Jill Abramson fired because she hired too many women?"
Richard Johnson asks.
Heh, heh, she said "Richard Johnson"... Dick Johnson, heh, heh.
Wrong question, or at any rate incomplete. If she hired mediocre women because they had the right gender in lieu of more talented individuals who had the misfortune of being born with external genitalia, then that would have to be a concern for upper management.
I see that Richard Johnson only comments on the gender of the new hires, not their talent. I wonder why that is.
Without commenting at all on the quality of the pools of available talent (male and female), the male pool of reporters and editors at the NYT and beyond seems larger than the female.
Those wonderful disparate impact studies that liberals love would tend to demand that therefore, you hire more males.
That Jill brought in females at a rapid pace doesn't bother me, but one wonders if they were demonstrably weaker than the males that they replaced and that reflected on Jill's judgement and biases.
------
All the above is pure supposition, but that's what most labor law discrimination cases amount to...
So far the only thing I've taken away from this whole NYT drama is that it seems like it would be a horrible place to work at, a place run by very angry, arrogant, and petty people. Truthfully this has just reinforced my beliefs about the NYT.
Can we find out if the women Abramson hired were paid less than the male predecessors, too?
"But Abramson went too far in some eyes. The victims were the talented, hardworking male editors who were forced out, or passed over, in Abramson’s campaign of affirmative action."
Oh if those eyes could talk. On the record of course we have some idea of whether the writer is making this up.
You mean, was she fired for the same reason she was hired?
"You mean, was she fired for the same reason she was hired?"
You can't say she was hired for hiring women. She was on the receiving end when she was hired, on the power side when she hired.
That tells you something about what the NYT thinks about women and power.
The powers that be probably have a sense of what the "right" number of women is (at all the various levels) and Abramson as a power herself had a different idea from the idea that the powerful men had when they started their idea of empowering women.
No no. Jill Abramson was fired because she liked black people.
And puppies.
Kittens too. Fired for liking kittens. Can you believe?
She was wronged!
She wears too much makeup.
It might have been turbulence.
"Was Jill Abramson fired because she hired too many women?"
I would hope so.
It seems that Jill was practicing blatant gender discrimination in hiring. Should that not be a firing offense?
If only she hadn't pushed out a *black* man to make way for more women, she'd still have a job at the NYT.
AA: The powers that be probably have a sense of what the "right" number of women is (at all the various levels) and Abramson as a power herself had a different idea from the idea that the powerful men had when they started their idea of empowering women.
Great point. I am not persuaded that it was the idea of powerful men to empower women in positions like this.
And what is the "right number"?
It became a cultural norm much like the empowerment of gays is becoming. Too hard to swim against the tide.
From my experience in the corporate and academic worlds, women in authority tend to hire more women. Men, however, in those positions have another predisposition, rarely talked about: the sexual component.
One reason to bring in a new Editor could be that you want someone with their finger on the pulse of what and who are currently hot in journalism. If the person you hire happens to know of a pool of talent that is being overlooked because it is not of the type formerly hired by the newspaper, and she can land some of that talent for the paper, then she's Billy Beane & should not be fired.
The "right" number of women by leftist political calculation or by efficacy in the job? Because the first number is per force much larger than the second.
If Dean Baquet saw Abramson passing over men to only hire women, that might explain another reason why he strongly resisted. He may have thought setting up a woman to do his exact duties without consulting him - was his own process of replacement by yet another preferred (by Abramson) woman. He thought he was "next" on the male eradication list.
Fortunately he was black - and we all know race trumps gender.
The un-told story is That Jill was fired for thinking Women thoughts, all day long.
We men cannot think those sensitive emotional thoughts or knowings, so we overlook the power they contain.
But they are there all of the time. Men taking Rodney King's approach, "...can't we all just get along?' will not stop this jugsernaught.
If the dismissal of Abramson is illustrative of the ineptitude of Sulzberger, can't someone point out with equal justification that so was her hiring......,At any event, Baquet is in a pretty good tactical position. There's no way Sulzberger can fire him within the next ten years. If Baquet ever gets afflicted with stomach cramps, he should relieve himself on Sulzberger's desk and use Sulzberger's tie as toilet paper. I'm speaking metaphorically.
"Was Jill Abramson fired because she hired too many women?"
Don't know, but Elliott Spitzer was.
I am still shocked that no one - no one - in the media other than I have raised this issue:
"Pulling a Baquet"
Jill got undone by it.
Obama did to Hill in Iowa during the primaries.
Dean Baquet did to Jill.
It is sad that women have to fight so many battles to survive today.
Are we a great country where all are equal or are just a pretentious country that could be great, if and only if….
Hasn't run its 15 minutes yet?
What difference at this point does it make?
It appears that that 15 minutes is not over.
In the photo, who is the beaming bitch in the big beanie behind bitchy Jill?
(I really have no idea if the beaming babe is a bitch but besotted by b's I blurted "bitch!"
Do men even read the New York Times? It's been a woman's publication, like Ms., for a long time.
Abramson was onto something. Get rid of the beta men and replace them with alpha women.
too many women?
Probably:
Meanwhile, the weekly New York Times Science Section seems to be moving in the direction of People Magazine, with so much of the coverage seemingly focused on phone apps, dieting, and phone apps to assist with dieting. For example, fully half of the Letters page in this morning’s print edition was devoted to a heated debate on the “Science of Overeating.”
It's also true that when Jill was managing editor she had a co-managing editor who was a man. So appointing a woman to be co-managing editor alongside Dean was hardly out of place.
Why Jill Abramson was fired is (a) one of the least interesting questions of the last six months;
(b) pretty much irrelevant; becuase (c) when your boss who owns the joint decides the grief he's getting from or about you hurts more than your contribution, then you're "toast". Unless you, whether male or female, have pictures of the boss's naked body in carnal congress with a goat. Then you can stay on.
She, a token woman, bribed with a big job to shut up the feminists actually believed little Pinch's bullshit. That's why she was a "bitch" to the old boys.
This kind of thing has a subliminal effect no matter if the hires were of the highest quality. It's also why having women in top positions is important to other women.
Case in point: Four out of nine, not quite parity, and yet that's close enough to make some nervous and ponder retaliation.
Some people asked what I meant by the new term:
Pulling a Baquet --
If you want to get a rival fired and take her/his place, then the means of conveying to your supervisor that you need to be promoted is "pulling a Baquet".
It is how Obama forced primary voters in Iowa to support him over Hillary. Else, he will be disappointed at the voters.
We just did not know what it was called.
Now, it is: Pulling a Baquet.
Fernandinande: thanks for the Unz link.
It sounds like Pinch Sulzberger #BANNEDBOSSY....
You don't have to be a Jill Abramson fan to think the whole thing smells bad. Nonapod and Cinderellastory are right on. I posted my thoughts on my blog several days ago.
She was fired for having no lips and a face that resembles a constipated turtle. Seems about as reasonable as all of the other speculation.
I'd fire her for the vocal fry alone.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा