Nat Ives asks that of Jill Abramson. “It’s not important in the news report itself,” says the Times’ next executive editor. “It obviously is an important breakthrough, just from my inbox, that has made a lot of my women colleagues very happy. It’s meaningful to them. But I’ve also gotten fantastic notes from my male colleagues.” She’s also asked what she learned during the months she took off to explore the paper’s online side.
The more I submerged into the web newsroom, I was some combination of surprised or worried that Bill [Keller] and I were not really invested enough in the direction and news rhythm of our digital news report. As I read more and more early in the morning I felt like everyone else was playing to win the morning, and we weren’t enough. Many sites, whether Politico or Bloomberg or another site, by like 6:30 in the morning were full of fresh stories. If breaking news had happened overnight, we covered it, but basically early in the morning we were an echo on the web of the six stories that were on the front of the print paper.
More reports on Bill Keller stepping down to write and Abramson becoming executive editor:
> Abramson briefly considered taking Nieman Foundation curator job
> Kurtz: The only surprise about Abramson’s appointment was the timing
> Handoff to Abramson had been long predicted by NYT Kremlinologists
> Baquet: Abramson wasn’t chosen because she’s a woman, but it’s still a big deal
> “I wanted to go because the place is in good shape,” Keller tells Bercovici
> Folkenflik: “Abramson’s ascension at the Times was seamless”
> Abramson says she doesn’t want to be in a war with Huffington | Video
> Shafer: Her appointment to executive editorship “makes great sense”
> Inside reaction to appointment: No disappointment, no excitement
> Auletta: Abramson has a fervent belief in narrative non-fiction writing