The New York Times has announced that Jill Abramson will be stepping down as the paper’s Executive Editor, but why?
by Ashley Canino
Almost three years ago to the day, women journalists were celebrating the appointment of Jill Abramson to the Executive Editor position at the New York Times. Despite its liberal bent, the newspaper of record had not escaped the patriarchy that is journalism leadership, and Abramson’s promotion was considered a huge step toward gender equality in the newsroom. Now, a couple of weeks shy of her third anniversary in the position, we are left wondering about the details and ramifications of her dismissal.
On Wednesday afternoon, the New York Times staff received the unexpected news from its publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., that Abramson would no longer be on their team, let alone leading it. As soon as the news went public, speculation began as to why Abramson got the boot. Some theories are reminiscent of recent media dialogue around Sheryl Sandberg’s Ban Bossy campaign. A number of times throughout her tenure at the Times, the media has referred or documented references to Abramson as “intimidating and brusque” or “stubborn and condescending“.
These are dangerous words to sling at a woman at a high-profile position in a career in which only one-third of full-time employees are women. Everyone in the work force has had a leader at one point or another who embodied the terms listed above, but how many of those leaders were fired on this basis? And how many times have these words been leveled at men versus women in leadership positions? Also of note is the fact that these assessments of Abramson were made even before she was promoted to Executive Editor. It is unlikely that Sulzberger was simply unaware of her so-called personality issues before her promotion, so it is unclear why they would become a problem three years down the road. How likely is it that gender bias was at play? Ask the New York Times. They published the article “Women as Bosses Still Face Bias” in February of this year.
Of the landslide of pieces on Abramson’s dismissal, former Pulitzer Prize juror Ken Auletta’s New Yorker piece on Abramson is the most compelling. Auletta cites three major reasons for Abramson losing her job: her conflict with the business operations leadership at the paper, her hiring process for a deputy managing editor, and her inquiry into gendered pay gaps at the organization. According to a report by POLITICO, a spokeswoman for the New York Times denies Auletta’s assertion that Abramson was fired for inquiring about a pay gap, and that she was not paid less then her predecessor, Bill Keller. All of these reasons are made more plausible when we think of Abramson being described with the adjectives above, and also offer a reason why Abramson’s assertiveness would become a much greater issue of late. According to the Times, we are short on specifics of Sulzberger’s decision to fire Abramson because the paper and Abramson agreed not to share them. If Abramson’s dismissal was on purely biased terms, it seems unlikely that she would agree not to speak on the matter, but social disparities within the Times and previous allegations of discrimination against women leveled against the paper cannot be ignored. An employment lawyer can compile proof to dispute your employer’s decision to fire you.
The long-term effect of Abramson’s dismissal on women in the journalism community remains to be seen, but that an impact will be felt is undeniable. There is a potential for journalists to see Sulzberger’s decision as an injustice, one to work toward preventing in other newsrooms by protecting female writers from gender discrimination. But there is also the potential for female reporters, worried that being assertive journalists is the fastest way to get canned, will become shrinking violets, removing themselves from the race to the top of the masthead.
Let’s hope the effects of Abramson’s short presence at the paper are more heavily felt. According to the Times announcement, Abramson acknowledged her support of female journalists in her press release regarding her departure:
“’I’ve loved my run at the Times,’ Ms. Abramson said in a prepared statement. ‘I got to work with the best journalists in the world doing so much stand-up journalism,’ she added, noting her appointment of many senior female editors as one of her achievements.”
And Amanda Hess’s piece in Slate reveals just how much of an impact Abramson had on fellow female journalists in her newsroom. Whether it was showing leadership at work, or offering after-hours advice at the “Old Girls Club” happy hour, “Abramson’s presence allowed a new generation of women at the Times to begin to see a possible future in leadership at the paper,” says Hess.
There are a couple of definitively positive points about this story. The fact that it has caught fire in the media means that there is a keen eye on the hiring and firing of women in executive positions. No top female journalists will be pushed out without scrutiny. The other upside is that the promotion of Dean Baquet, Abramson’s replacement, is also a social step forward. Before Wednesday afternoon, an African-American had never held the New York Times Executive Editor position. In light of Sulzberger having already passed over Baquet to promote Abramson, the media community wonders if the publisher is merely saving face by trading one diverse hire for another.
Ashley Canino writes The Riveter’s weekly pop culture column, “Pop Rivets”, published every Monday. You can find her on Twitter @AshleyCanino.
(New York Times photo © Alec Perkins/Flickr)
