If I see one more tweet, Tumblr post, or misinformed article about the firing of Jill Abramson from her position as the editor-in-chief of the New York Times shouting cries of sexism in the newsroom, I may lose it.
It’s become far too easy to go for the low hanging fruit, the idea of being politically correct. Just because a woman is in power, the men must have hated her, right? They must have been conspiring against her, plotting a way to make sure the power of the patriarchy was safe and sound. The very fact that social media at large immediately turned to the cry of sexism in Abramson’s firing just shows how little progress has been made in the attitude towards powerful women.
“But I saw a Tumblr post saying that,” you interject. Yes, everything on the Internet that some misinformed teen created must be true (I hope you can sense my sarcasm in this sentence… if not, it is meant to be sarcasm). It’s quite difficult to convince these Tumblr-inspired social media activists that some of the things they see on that beautiful blue background are— gasp- untrue. Same goes for those who religiously follow the Huffington Post (a fact I find revolting in itself). The submissions for Huffington Post are surprisingly lax, and the website picks up a slew of college newspaper articles, showing a lack of professionalism. The issue with sites like these is the fact that anyone can seemingly write and be published, and Huffington Post and other similar sites like Jezebel and Slate are widely popularized on social media. (The constant theme of being fooled by faulty information will continue to anger me, especially as many of the people who blindly trust these sources without cross-checking information have the audacity to make fun of people who fall prey to some of the headlines of The Onion.)
In the media world, it’s been no secret that Abramson is tough as nails, stubborn, and unrelenting. An article by Politico contributor Dylan Byers in April 2013 brought the issue to the public eye, as though many had known that Abramson was hard to impress, they didn’t realize the degree of her toughness. She’s known by her colleagues as reducing people to tears and being “impossible.” A New York Times reporter stated that “every editor has a story about how she’s blown up in a meeting,” and other editors of the staff have described her as stubborn, condescending, unreasonable, and hard to work with. Though under her leadership the Times had eight Pulitzer victories for reporting, Abramson’s abrasive, high-handed, troublesome and tyrannical management techniques led the Times hire a consultant to help her with her management style. Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. stated that he heard concerns from employees that Abramson was “polarizing, mercurial, and divisive” and many news outlets have cited the fact that Abramson clashed with her successor and second-in-command, Dean Baquet, who on occasion was so frustrated that he slammed his hand against a wall after exiting Abramson’s office (for those who are crying out that I’m a hypocrite, this fact from the Bryer article was actually confirmed in a New York Times article on May 14, 2014, more than a year later after the Politico article’s publication).
Feminists and bloggers have noted the cryptic wording of Sulzberger’s statement issued pertaining to Abramson’s firing which that it was “an issue of management in the newsroom,” and they have interpreted it as meaning something along the lines of ‘the men in the office must have hated her.’ Citing sexism as the fault in almost any issue has become a trend, a label that is tossed on when someone is too lazy to take the time to actually research a topic. Online reporting has turned to cheap entertainment, hoping to get more likes, notes, and shares by using a controversial or eye-catching headline. Just a couple weeks ago, Time Magazine released an article with the byline “Michelle Obama Loves to Splurge,” which was ridiculously misleading as it turned out Obama’s quote was used out of context: she had been discussing splurging on unhealthy foods once in a while, not spending on money. Nevertheless, it was all over Twitter and Tumblr as a trending topic, as angry social media activists stated that enough is enough and the Obamas are living too luxuriously in the White House.
People are all too quick to believe Twitter and social media sites. The account @trutherbot on Twitter has 187,000 followers who constantly retweet and spread its content, including tweets with no citations whatsoever that states things like “feminism was a plot by the CIA” and “there are sterilizing agents in vaccines today.” It’s appalling and embarrassing to see how my peers believe that these tweets are completely true, and cite them in conversation (gag). The same goes for Tumblr posts about sexism that are if cited, are poorly cited (note: I do agree that there are some well-researched posts in circulation and trustworthy links to reputable news sites), and I feel completely uncomfortable when my peers take their posts as truth without a blink of an eye.
And when it comes to people citing the lower pay that Abramson had (a hefty six-figure salary, no less) in comparison to her colleagues (specifically the management of the Times), it’s hard to have to disappoint them by explaining the fact that the editor-in-chief is not the be-all-end-all of a newspaper. Though an editor-in-chief may be in charge of assigning and selecting content, Abramson was not the one generating revenue for the huge company (as newspapers have come to be). She was not the one selling ads or doing business deals. She was not the one in charge of social media presence, in charge of making sure the paper was published every morning and distributed across the country and the world. She wasn’t making layouts. There are so many important factors to the publication of a daily newspaper, and it’s understandable that some of her colleagues at the Times, such as upper level management in the business division, were making more money than her during her employment.
Abramson’s firing was not an act of misogyny. It is not the right time to cite Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In. The way the issue has been handled by social media is embarrassing for our American public, as it shows the gullibility and quick-to-assume nature of today’s society. We look for a quick label to slap on, something to blame. Many pointing fingers had never even heard of the name Jill Abramson before, and now are too blind and unrelenting to listen to the facts.
I can assure you that if Jill Abramson had been a man who had been fired for poor management techniques, no one would be crying foul over it.
