海角大神

Jill Abramson: Why the New York Times ousted its first female top editor

Jill Abramson: The surprise firing of New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson raises eyebrows and questions about whether there's a 'glass cliff' for women in power that's not as evident for men.

When the New York Times suddenly and unceremoniously dismissed executive editor Jill Abramson on Wednesday, its newsroom was filled with gob-smacked gasps and reeling 鈥渨ow鈥� reactions.

And as fluttered out and the news broke, the rest of the media world quickly joined their stunned colleagues. Less than three years on the job, Ms. Abramson held one of the most powerful editorial positions in the world, and she was the first woman in 162 years to stand at the helm of the storied newsroom.

Given the power of Abramson's position and her relatively brief tenure, many observers began to raise the elusive specter of sexism and the so-called "glass cliff" faced by women in high places. During the past 10 years, nearly 4 out of 10 top female executives in the world鈥檚 biggest companies have been fired, while only 27 percent of their male counterparts lost their top-level jobs, of the world鈥檚 2,500 biggest companies by Strategy&, a global consultant.

And in a remarkable coincidence, Natalie Nougayr猫de, the first female editor-in-chief of Le Monde, the venerable Paris-based daily and one of the most prestigious news organizations in Europe, after senior editors staged a newsroom revolt to her leadership, objecting to changes she had planned.

听Abramson鈥檚 ouster comes amid a tumultuous time for American newsrooms, still adjusting to economic upheavals wrought by the transition to digital platforms. And despite this gendered context, tensions had been simmering at the Times for a while, according to a number of reports. 鈥淸I] can say that this leadership shift was expected eventually 鈥� just not now,鈥� tweeted Laurie Goodstein, a religion reporter at the Times.

Abramson was fired primarily because of her 鈥渕ercurial鈥� style, , noting this style polarized the newsroom and led to many complaints. The paper also described 鈥渟erious tension鈥� in her relationship with Arthur Sulzberger, the publisher and chairman of The New York Times Company.

Mr. Sulzberger reportedly told the staff that the decision to oust Abramson was 鈥渘ot about the quality of our journalism鈥� or 鈥渁ny disagreement over the direction of our digital future,鈥� according to, a former media reporter at the Times who worked with both. Indeed, during Abramson's 2-1/2 years on the job, the paper collected eight Pulitzer Prizes, the profession鈥檚 top honor 鈥� including four prizes just last year.

Noting Sulzberger's reported issues with Abramson鈥檚 leadership style, rather than her accomplishments or decisions, many women have pointed out how difficult it is for women to express the same kind of aggressive 鈥� and abrasive 鈥� traits as ambitious male leaders.

鈥淚 think that people need to remember that women who have made it to the top have gotten there because of certain qualities,鈥� says Lisa Maatz, vice president of government relations at the American Association of University Women in Washington. 鈥淭hey have had to be better, faster, stronger, more brash, more gruff, however you want to say it, in order to get that far.鈥�

鈥淲e have a very special name for women like that in our culture,鈥� she continues. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 not to say that that鈥檚 not a prickly or difficult person to work with, but we certainly don't seem to have a problem working with men who are like that. It鈥檚 women that we penalize when they get into these upper echelon positions.鈥�

The focus on Abramson鈥檚 ouster, however, has detracted from the historic accomplishment of her successor, Dean Baquet, who had been the paper鈥檚 managing editor, the second-senior position in the newsroom.

Mr. Baquet, reported to be a popular figure among the Times鈥� staff, became the first black journalist to lead the Times on Wednesday 鈥� a fact that would have been hailed as another historic milestone in the quest for equality for minorities. Baquet was the Washington bureau chief before becoming managing editor in 2011 and, before that, had been the managing editor of the Los Angeles Times. In 1988, he won the Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting for the Chicago Tribune.

But instead of focusing on his achievement, the Times, on Thursday, has been facing a growing number of questions about possible sexism in Abramson鈥檚 firing. On Wednesday, media journalists for The New Yorker and NPR reported that Abramson鈥檚 lawyer had confronted 鈥渢op brass鈥� when she learned that her pay and pension benefits were well below the levels of her predecessor, Bill Keller.

鈥淸This] may have fed into the management鈥檚 narrative that she was 'pushy,' a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect,鈥� for The New Yorker.

Abramson鈥檚 firing, too, comes during a time when equal pay for female employees has once again become a national issue. In April, Senate Republicans killed an equal-pay bill in election year maneuverings, and President Obama signed two executive orders last month, one forbidding federal contractors from retaliating against employees who inquire about their pay, and the other requiring federal contractors to give the US Labor Department demographic information about how they pay their employees.

The Times rejected the suggestion that she was underpaid, however. "Jill's total compensation as executive editor was not less than Bill Keller's, so that is just incorrect," said New York Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy on Wednesday. "Her pension benefit, like all Times employees, is based on her years of service and compensation. The pension benefit was frozen in 2009."

And, in addition to concerns over Abramson's management style, reports said she had clashed with the Times Company鈥檚 CEO Mark Thompson over the intrusion of business matters into editorial content and the growing resources being devoted to the use of video.

鈥淭here were other issues,鈥� The New Yorker's Mr. Auletta said on "CBS This Morning" on Thursday. 鈥淪he wasn鈥檛 just fired, clearly, because of the pay disparity issue. That fed into a narrative that she was difficult to work with.鈥�

But other high-level women at the Times reportedly expressed frustration with Sulzberger鈥檚 decision to fire the paper鈥檚 first female executive editor. , both national editor Alison Mitchell and and assistant managing editor Susan Chira told the company鈥檚 chairman that Abramson鈥檚 ouster 鈥渨ouldn鈥檛 sit well with a broad swath of female Times journalists.鈥�

Indeed, on Thursday, a number of young female staffers at the Times how symbolically important Abramson鈥檚 success was for their own career prospects, especially since she had been bringing more women into leadership positions at the paper.

鈥淲omen in such positions feel pressure about the fact that they are, in some respects, the trial for all women,鈥� says Ms. Maatz at the AAUW. 鈥淭hat if somehow they don鈥檛 do well, their company is less likely to promote other women 鈥� and of course women leaders care about that.鈥�