New York Post puts Jill Abramson on its front page

The New York Post put an Instagram photo by Jill Abramson’s daughter on its front page Friday.

Thursday night Ken Auletta followed his earlier report on Abramson’s firing with an account of the numbers behind a reported compensation dispute between her and The New York Times:

Let’s look at some numbers I’ve been given: As executive editor, Abramson’s starting salary in 2011 was $475,000, compared to [former Executive Editor Bill] Keller’s salary that year, $559,000. Her salary was raised to $503,000, and—only after she protested—was raised again to $525,000. She learned that her salary as managing editor, $398,000, was less than that of the male managing editor for news operations, John Geddes. She also learned that her salary as Washington bureau chief, from 2000 to 2003, was a hundred thousand dollars less than that of her successor in that position, Phil Taubman. (Murphy would say only that Abramson’s compensation was “broadly comparable” to that of Taubman and Geddes.)

Abramson hired a lawyer when she learned of the discrepancy, Auletta reports, and he says Murphy “argued that there was no real compensation gap, but conceded to me that ‘this incident was a contributing factor’ to the firing of Abramson, because ‘it was part of a pattern.’”

Murphy disputed she’d conceded the point about the lawyer.

Perhaps more intriguing than the salary numbers in Auletta’s report is the question of when exactly the Times soured on Abramson’s leadership. Times Co. CEO Mark Thompson emailed her on April 28 after speaking to Guardian U.S. Editor-in-Chief Janine Gibson, who Abramson wanted to hire: “She reveres you and will need convincing that you’re going to sign up for some more years as Editor,” Thompson wrote. “I told her I was doing my best to persuade you that you should!”

Also on Thursday evening, The Washington Post’s Paul Farhi reported the Post “tried to hire her for a senior editing job while she ran the Times’ Washington bureau between 2000 and 2003.” She “eventually declined the offer.”

And back at the Times, new Executive Editor Dean Baquet “held a conference call with foreign correspondents and a meeting with the national desk to answer their questions about the change,” Ravi Somaiya and Leslie Kaufman report.

The deputy managing editor for personnel issues, Janet Elder, called a meeting of senior female managers to solicit their feedback and also assure them that Ms. Abramson had received compensation comparable with her predecessors.

It is simply not true that Jill’s compensation was significantly less than her predecessors,” Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. wrote in a memo to staffers yesterday.

We have made it easy to comment on posts, however we require civility and encourage full names to that end (first initial, last name is OK). Please read our guidelines here before commenting.

  • JTFloore

    despite efforts by some to look for a single “smoking gun,” it is obvious that no one thing caused ms. abramson’s demise. it appears she simply pissed off the wrong colleagues, the wrong superiors, the wrong combination of colleagues and superiors. those are hard things to overcome in a pressure cooker like the newsroom of the times where sniping at each other is an every-day fact of life. further, it appears clear there was a glaring breakdown in newsroom communication on several levels. whoever said a business that likes to believe it specializes in communicating knows how to communicate itself, particularly when an army of competing, ambitious, political personalities are in play?

    virtually every newsroom in the country probably fails to successfully manage the elements of those complex dynamics. add all that to what has been broadly portrayed as ms. abramson’s imperious management style and it shouldn’t have been hard to predict she wouldn’t last long in that job. maybe she simply was not temperamentally suited for it in the first place. a number of her own appointments, some of which did not last long, compounded her problems even further.

    of course, it is easy enough to conclude that all of these failings, in one way or another, go back to mr. sulzberger. he, after all, is the captain of the ship.

  • Geezer

    Pro tip for NYT spokesperson. When disputing allegations of gender-based pay discrimination — do not say fired woman exec’s pay was “broadly comparable.”