One would think that the executive editor of the New York Times would need to be ‘pushy’ in order to be successful in the job.
But according to one explanation as to why Jill Abramson was suddenly stood down as the first female executive editor of the paper today, ‘pushy’ is only useful to a point — and certainly not a trait management wants to deal with when it comes to discussing pay.
According to a New Yorker piece published today by Ken Auletta, Abramson had recently discovered she was being paid considerably less than the man she had replaced when the became managing editor of the Times and later executive editor.
And so she confronted management. And, according to some sources quoted by Auletta, that saw earlier characterisations of her as ‘pushy’ confirmed.
Auletta claims the Times‘ publisher Arthur Sulzberger had been growing increasing frustrated with Abramson over a number of issues, including an argument she was believed to have had with the CEO and the fact she was pushing to hire a deputy managing editor. The pay dispute may have been the final nail in the coffin.
NPR media correspondent David Folkenflic also writes today that Abramson had confronted management over her pay.
It took 160 years for the New York Times to appoint a female executive editor. She has been replaced by Dean Baquet, the first African-Amercian to serve in the role.
Abramson had joined the paper in 1997 from the Wall Street Journal. She started her career with The Harvard Independent, later working as a reporter with Time, The American Lawyer and the Legal Times. She’s been named as one of the most powerful people in the world by Forbes and Foreign Policy Magazine.
In a statement, she said: “I’ve loved my run at The Times. I got to work with the best journalists in the world doing so much stand-up journalism.”