On May 14th, Jill Abramson, the New York Times Executive Editor, was fired without explanation. Abramson, the first female Executive Editor in the Times’ 160 years as a publication, had served in that capacity since 2011, and had worked at the paper since 1998.
Her replacement, Dean Baquet, was her main rival for the position in 2011. After Abramson was appointed, Baquet was made her managing editor. He is the Times’ first African-American editor in it’s history.
Even soon after her ascendancy to the position, there was dissatisfaction with her performance. She greatly reduced the power of the paper’s digital arm, making it subservient to the print section of the paper. This angered many journalists working there. She also pushed out popular editors who were important in the digital sector such as Assistant Managing Editor Jim Roberts and Jonathan Landman.
Abramson’s defenders argue that she is a victim of sexism. There are reports that she was paid as much as 100,000 dollars less than her male predecessors and that she was fired when she pushed for equal pay. They say that things are harder for female journalists, and that journalism is still in many respects a “boy’s club” where men dominate the profession.
However, many women who work at the Times are saying that Abramson was not fired because of her gender, but simply because she was an unsatisfactory editor.
For now, many of the details relating to Abramson’s firing are unavailable. The incident is becoming more and more of a hot-button issue for both sides of the aisle, and mass punditry has already begun to ensue. Until the truth about why Abramson was fired comes out, the debate will likely continue, and depending on the explanation, may continue further afterwards.
by Alex Marinides
