thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
... and she dared to confront the powers that be with the facts. To which they responded -- privately, of course -- that she was a pushy, uppity female.The New Yorker: Why Jill Abramson was firedhttp://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2014/05/why-jill-abramson-was-fired.htmlhttp://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2014/05/why-jill-abramson-was-fired.html
At the annual City University Journalism School dinner, on Monday, Dean Baquet, the managing editor of the New York Times, was seated with Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., the paper’s publisher. At the time, I did not give a moment’s thought to why Jill Abramson, the paper’s executive editor, was not at their table. Then, at 2:36 P.M. on Wednesday, an announcement from the Times hit my e-mail, saying that Baquet would replace Abramson, less than three years after she was appointed the first woman in the top job. Baquet will be the first African-American to lead the Times.
Fellow-journalists and others scrambled to find out what had happened. Sulzberger had fired Abramson, and he did not try to hide that. In a speech to the newsroom on Wednesday afternoon, he said, “I chose to appoint a new leader of our newsroom because I believe that new leadership will improve some aspects …” Abramson chose not to attend the announcement, and not to pretend that she had volunteered to step down.
As with any such upheaval, there’s a history behind it. Several weeks ago, I’m told, Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs.
What?? The champion of the Little Marxist Dictator's "income equality" garbage didn't pay its female executive editor the same salary and benefits it's previous male editor had received??
Uh ... oops??
The sheer arrogance and chutzpah of the extreme left on display, ladies and gentlemen.