So was the New York Times paying Jill Abramson less than Bill Keller?

Well, it definitely is starting to look like it, now whether Abramson’s request to be paid the same led to her dismissal is unknown. Abramson is being replaced by Dean Baquet, the managing editor and first Black man to hold the position. This is a big deal and good for him.

But the rumors going around implies Abramson challenged the paper including Arthur Sulzberger no her salary. It is being reported that she confronted the paper about her pay being considerable less than Bill Keller (both pay and benefits). This resulted in her being characterized as “pushy”. Nothing gendered about that language. So there are some factors that could account for some of the disparity including Sulzberger wanting to cut back on pay and pensions. Also, Abramson had been at The Times for fewer years than Keller.

Eileen Murphy, a spokesperson for The Times, claims Abramson’s compensation as executive editor was “directly comparable to Bill Keller’s,” but it was not the same. Murphy told POLITOCO that , “Jill’s total compensation as executive editors was not less than Bill Keller’s, so that is just incorrect….Her pension benefit, like all Times employees, is based on her years of service and compensation. The pension benefit was frozen in 2009.”

Murphy told Business Insider: “Jill’s total compensation as executive editor was not meaningfully less than Bill Keller’s, so that is just incorrect.” This was via email, “Her pension benefit, like all Times employees, is based on her years of service and compensation. The pension benefit was frozen in 2009.”

Murphy had another statement for Gawker: “There is no discrepancy. Jill’s compensation was directly comparable to Bill’s during their times as executive editor. Not less, not meaningfully less, not considerably less (as reported in the NY’er), directly comparably.”

Sounds legit. Obviously, Dylan Byer’s thinks nothing is wrong because he’s a sexist. But NPR’s David Folkenflik had an amazing rundown on Twitter:

Some key points about the firing of NYT exec ed Jill Abramson by publishing/Chairman Arthur  Sulzberger….

1. Sulzberger had initially been conflicted about picking Abramson-for top slot-AS had long seen Baquet as a future exec editor

1a. Baquet left NYT in 2000 to become LAT managing editor & then top editor; he rejoined in 07 after defying Tribune execs over further cuts

1b. Baquet’s ultimate willingness to defy corp chief on cuts in LA gave business-side execs some agita.

2. Abramson had a relatively high profile as Time exec editor, in significant part because of path-breaking nature of her appointment

2a. Sulzberger didn’t love that profile

2b. This continued in interviews about her role as a “first”-though she tended to tamp such discussions-and her book about her dog.

2c. a significant number of journalists who worked for her-even some in editing ranks-found her brusque to point of rudeness

2d. none of which should discount her ability as a journalist-or Q of whether a male exec editor would find manner so scrutinized

3. Over time, Abramson lost currency with Sulzberger. She told one associate in recent weeks that her job wouldn’t last forever.

4. She also had alienated the still relatively new CEO Mark Thompson, who arrived from tenure atop BBC

4a. Thompson was pushing a video-heavy strategy for NYT’s digital push; Abramson feared would be a diversion of time and energy

4b. Thompson also livid that Abramson sent investigative ed to UK to see if he had any role in BBC’s brewing child abuse coverup scandal

5. Sulzberger’s son Arthur Sulzberger & colleagues wrote report saying NYT had not been bold enough in innovating digitally

5a. Abramson not digital native-but had steeped herself in digital side before taking over; NYT had taken digital strides under her

6. According to New Yorker’s Ken Auletta, final straw was discovery she was being paid considerable less than predecessor @billkellwe2014

6a. Auletta reports she demanded top press pay her comparably (link to New Yorker)

7a. previous departures fit two patterns: Howell Raines unceremoniously dumped amid Jayson Blair plagiarism/fabrication scandal

7b. Keller allowed effectively to pick his time to depart, and a victory lap. This fits neither

8. Abramson’s firing most closely resembles that of former NYT Co CEO Janet Robinson-who oversaw introduction of now-heralded paywall

8a. Robinson paid a monarch’s ransom for severance but essentially ushered out of the building

8b. Brutal for Sulzberger to deny Abramson a chance to address the troops-to relieve her highs and lows as a top editor for 16+ years

9. Even though Abramson’s appointment was based on journalistic merit, figures at Times wonder what role gender ultimately played in ouster.

10. I can now report that I have independently confirmed that Abramson did indeed challenge corporate brass over what she saw as unequal pay.

Everyone seems to agree that Sulzberger and Abramson weren’t going for an after work happy hour, but a lot of media outlets aren’t talking about the alleged pay gap. Can you feel the lawsuit coming on? If this is true, if The New York Times fired a woman for asking for the same pay as her male predecessor, that is insane. It is 2014 after all. All women have to do is lean in and be confident then we’ll be treated equally, isn’t that what all the books and politicians say? Oh, wait there is structural oppression that leads to this. 

**Note there seems to be some discussion about race and Abramson's dismissal. I'm not aware of the issues here because nothing I've read has diminished the qualifications of Mr. Baquet.  However, any such work would be inappropriate and lose credibility in my mind because Abramson's dismissal should be about the paper and he not about the person following her.