New York Times publisher again defends removal of executive editor
May 19, 2014, 12:02 am TWN
NEW YORK--New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. provided a fresh defense Saturday of his removal of executive editor Jill Abramson, saying it had nothing to do with his company's treatment of women but with Abramson's management style.
She was the paper's first female executive editor. The Times replaced Abramson, 60, on Wednesday and promoted managing editor Dean Baquet, 57, to executive editor.
“During her tenure, I heard repeatedly from her newsroom colleagues, women and men, about a series of issues, including arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult and bring colleagues with her, inadequate communication and the public mistreatment of colleagues,” Sulzberger, who also chairs the Times parent company, said in a statement.
“The saddest outcome” of the decision, he said, is that many have cast it as an example of unequal treatment of women. He denied that Abramson's compensation package was less than her predecessor's. Abramson was named executive editor in September 2011, replacing Bill Keller.
“Jill's pay package was comparable with Bill Keller's; in fact, by her last full year as executive editor, it was more than 10 percent higher than his,” he wrote.
Abramson has yet to comment publicly. No one answered her home phone Saturday, and she did not immediately respond to a LinkedIn message.
In a blog post Wednesday, New Yorker staff writer Ken Auletta quoted an anonymous “close associate” who said Abramson confronted the Times' leaders about her pay after discovering that both her pay and her pension benefits were less than that of Keller.
Sulzberger said in a memo to the newspaper's staff Thursday that it is “simply not true that Jill's compensation was significantly less than her predecessor's.” He elaborated in the Saturday statement.
“Equal pay for women is an important issue in our country — one that The New York Times often covers. But it doesn't help to advance the goal of pay equality to cite the case of a female executive whose compensation was not in fact unequal,” he wrote.