Articles about "Arthur Sulzberger Jr."


agsulzberger-small

NYT names Arthur Gregg Sulzberger an editor in charge of strategy

The New York Times Monday named Arthur Gregg Sulzberger its senior editor for strategy. Sulzberger led the Times’ “innovation report.” He’s in his early 30s and is the son of Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. “There’s also a good chance he’ll be running the place some day,” Joe Pompeo wrote in June.

Sulzberger in 2009. (Photograph by Ruth Fremson/The New York Times)

Sulzberger in 2009. (Photograph by Ruth Fremson/The New York Times)

Memo from Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet follows: Read more

Tools:
4 Comments

Jill Abramson: Being first on a story is a ‘point of pride’

PRX | The Daily Beast

At a talk at the Chautauqua Institution Wednesday, an audience member asked former New York Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson why being first is “so important for the press.”

Abramson admitted she sometimes asks herself the same thing: “sometimes given the speed at which even a tweet gets picked up, sometimes I did say to myself why is it so darned important because everybody knows everything — the boom effect in the media is so immediate now and so loud,” she said.

But: “again being candid with you, it’s kind of a point of pride.” Read more

Tools:
0 Comments

Compensation of NYT execs doesn’t ‘seem to match the company’s current size’

Reuters | Capital

Together, the three top executives at The New York Times — chairman and Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Times Co. CEO Mark Thompson and Vice Chairman Michael Golden — made $11.9 million in 2013, Jennifer Saba reports. “As a percentage of revenue, Times Co’s compensation is more generous than at six [media] companies and less generous than at three. But as a percentage of free cash flow, it far outranks every company, in many cases by a long way.”

Thompson, left, and Sulzberger in Paris last October. (AP Photo/Remy de la Mauviniere)

Sulzberger and Golden are members of the Ochs-Sulzberger family, which controls Times Co.’s preferred stock (and only those stockholders can vote on executive compensation). “In particular, Golden’s compensation raised questions, given his job as head of the Times Company’s human resources and modest international operations,” Saba writes. The company has posted better financial results since it shed non-core businesses like The Boston Globe and its share of the Red Sox, but “The levels of compensation don’t seem to match the company’s current size,” compensation expert Paul Hodgson tells Saba.

Sulzberger made “roughly $5.3 million” in 2013, down from $6.9 million in 2012, Joe Pompeo reported in March.

C.E.O. Mark Thompson, meanwhile, made $4.6 million in 2013, which was his first full year with the company. Vice chairman Michael Golden made a little under $2 million, while chief financial officer Jim Follo took in $1.8 million and general counsel Kenneth Richieri $1.3 million.

Read more
Tools:
0 Comments

Stop fetishizing nasty editors, Dean Baquet says

NPR

In an interview with NPR’s David Folkenflik, New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet says he never gave Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. an ultimatum about now-former Executive Editor Jill Abramson. He also talks a little bit about management style.

“I’m not commenting on Jill’s relationship with the newsroom or management style. I’ll let others do that,” Baquet said. “But one thing that people say is newspapers always have tough [leaders]. I mean I’ve seen many elegies to ‘the city editor who changed my life because he was really nasty to me for six months and it made me a better person.’ I think that’s nuts.”

He added, “I don’t think that leaders have to be or should be rough on their people. Leaders have to make tough decisions.”

Earlier this week, former (Greensboro, North Carolina) News & Record Editor John Robinson tweeted something along those lines, bouncing off a Jim Romenesko post about a tough editor.

He followed that tweet today:

Read more

Tools:
3 Comments

Vanity Fair: Baquet’s ‘ultimatum of sorts’ led to Abramson ouster

Vanity Fair

New York Times Co. CEO Mark Thompson, Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr and then Executive Editor Jill Abramson were all “actively recruiting” Guardian U.S. Editor-in-Chief Janine Gibson to a top digital role, Sulzberger says in an interview with Sarah Ellison in Vanity Fair.

Sulzberger calls the events around that hire “the wave.” Dean Baquet, then the newspaper’s managing editor, didn’t know Gibson “was being recruited for a job equal to his own,” she writes. At a lunch, “When Janine told Dean that she’d been offered the job of co-managing editor, he didn’t have a clue,” Sulzberger told Elllison. The story continues:

Baquet reportedly betrayed no irritation during his lunch with Gibson. But two days later, on Wednesday, May 7, he and Sulzberger had dinner. At that dinner, “I learned the severity of his feelings,” Sulzberger said, which I took to mean that Baquet gave Sulzberger an ultimatum of sorts. Baquet himself had earlier been offered a job at Bloomberg News. Now, Sulzberger worried that Baquet might leave. “At that point, we risked losing Dean, and we risked losing more than Dean,” Sulzberger said. “It would have been a flood, and a flood of some of our best digital people.” Sulzberger went into the office the next day and relayed to Abramson that his meeting with Baquet had not gone well. He gave himself 24 hours to make sure he was doing the right thing, he said. Then he offered the executive-editor job to Baquet. On Friday, May 9, he told Abramson it was time to make a change. The announcement was made five days later, on Wednesday, May 14.

Related: Times management “runs for the hills” when asked for specifics about Abramson firing (The Washington Post) Read more

Tools:
2 Comments
In this Oct. 18, 2011 photo, traffic passes the New York Times building, Tuesday, in New York.  The New York Times Co. stock rose sharply on Thursday, July 26, 2012 after the media company reported that second-quarter revenue increased more than expected.   (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)

New York Times’ Sulzberger took a risk; how about one more?

Arthur Sulzberger Jr.’s latest statement is a far cry from the May 14 New York Times news release about Jill Abramson’s departure, a missive that seems almost comically cordial now. Then, Sulzberger expressed his “sincere thanks” to her and she, in turn, thanked him for “the chance to serve,” calling him “a steadfast protector of our journalism.”

Addressing the staff that same day, Sulzberger would only describe the reason for the editor’s departure as “an issue with management in the newsroom.

Jill Abramson was gone and remained silent. Sulzberger thought he had said enough. But reports about the backstory surfaced from diggers like NPR’s David Folkenflik and The New Yorker’s Ken Auletta. The focus then turned, in large measure, to questions about compensation (was she the victim of pay discrimination?), style (was she really so tough to work for — and with?), the handling of her departure (why did it seem so cold-blooded?) and sexism (isn’t this just another example of women being sanctioned for behaviors that are valued in men?)

Then the world began to weigh in, with opinion pieces aplenty, including Poynter’s own, in which my colleague Kelly McBride and I both talked about the need for greater Times transparency about the firing. Much of the commentary came from women — about women.

It’s understandable.

At a time when women in journalism earn 17 percent less than men, when Abramson’s departure leaves no top 10 paper with a woman in the editor’s chair, when women are still underrepresented in the leadership ranks of many professions, when Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg wants us to “ban bossy,” a master narrative began to emerge: This firing must have been strictly about gender, power and money.

And that apparently didn’t ring true to the man who made the decision to fire Jill Abramson.

In an act that likely caused heartburn for attorneys and HR people, who traditionally counsel leaders to keep personnel reviews private, even in the face of public criticism, Sulzberger re-opened the conversation — with the kind of detail rarely shared about managerial performance. He said:

During her tenure, I heard repeatedly from her newsroom colleagues, women and men, about a series of issues, including arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult and bring colleagues with her, inadequate communication and the public mistreatment of colleagues.  I discussed these issues with Jill herself several times and warned her that, unless they were addressed, she risked losing the trust of both masthead and newsroom.  She acknowledged that there were issues and agreed to try to overcome them.  We all wanted her to succeed.  It became clear, however, that the gap was too big to bridge and ultimately I concluded that she had lost the support of her masthead colleagues and could not win it back.

That statement carries with it no small amount of risk, including ridicule from disbelievers or litigation by his former employee, especially if her separation agreement contains a common non-disparagement clause. (To learn more about them, you could always check out this January New York Times Op-Ed piece.)

Those are risks Arthur Sulzberger is willing to take in defense of his decision, his paper’s reputation, and his own legacy. He closed his statement by speaking about — and then apparently on behalf of — the women in his organization:

We are very proud of our record of gender equality at The New York Times. Many of our key leaders – both in the newsroom and on the business side – are women.  So too are many of our rising stars.  They do not look for special treatment, but expect to be treated with the same respect as their male colleagues.  For that reason they want to be judged fairly and objectively on their performance…

May I suggest he engage in one more risk? Be introspective. Ask the women of the Times about the status of women at the paper today: their pay, their evaluations, their promotions, their ability to have their ideas gain traction and to influence change. Is the pride in “our record of gender equality” shared widely? How do you know?

If there’s work to be done, lay out a plan for improvement (just as the recent deep-dive analysis of the paper’s digital shortcomings and need for culture change away from print-centrism did so clearly) — and share it.

If the findings are positive, then by all means be transparent about that, too. The world could use some good news about women in the workplace. And don’t hesitate to note, if credit is indeed due, that whatever her “management issue,” Jill Abramson helped other strong, smart women succeed at The New York Times. Read more

Tools:
10 Comments
Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., Chairman and Publisher of the New York Times, speaks at the New York Forum, Wednesday, June 23, 2010 in New York. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)

Sulzberger: Abramson ouster about management, not unequal pay

New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. issued a statement Saturday aimed at quashing reports that ousted editor Jill Abramson earned less than her male counterparts.

In doing so, Sulzberger elaborated on why Abramson was fired, and the language is a bit startling:

During her tenure, I heard repeatedly from her newsroom colleagues, women and men, about a series of issues, including arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult and bring colleagues with her, inadequate communication and the public mistreatment of colleagues.  I discussed these issues with Jill herself several times and warned her that, unless they were addressed, she risked losing the trust of both masthead and newsroom.  She acknowledged that there were issues and agreed to try to overcome them.  We all wanted her to succeed.  It became clear, however, that the gap was too big to bridge and ultimately I concluded that she had lost the support of her masthead colleagues and could not win it back.

Abramson could not be reached for immediate comment. Read more

Tools:
0 Comments

The International New York Times debuts

The first edition of The International New York Times appeared Tuesday. It replaces the International Herald Tribune. In a letter to readers on the front page, Times Publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. says his father “had the vision to make The Times a national newspaper in 1980.”

With today’s action, we are creating a single, unified global media brand, which will allow us to expand our digital hubs, grow our editorial team, add more international voices in news and opinion, and increase the coverage provided by some of our best writers from around the globe.

Read more

Tools:
0 Comments

Sulzberger sells portion of NYT Co. stock

The New York Times | The Wall Street Journal

New York Times Company Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. sold 50,000 shares of the company’s Class A stock Aug. 8. The sale was part of “Arthur’s normal estate planning,” Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy tells Christine Haughney.

Sulzberger coauthored a memo last week insisting the Times was not for sale. Read more

Tools:
0 Comments
Arthur Ochs Sulzberger

Sulzberger: ‘The New York Times is not for sale’

The New York Times | Politico | New York

The Times is not for sale,” New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. wrote in a memo to staff Wednesday evening. “Wednesday’s statement was released shortly after Mr. Sulzberger held a closed-door meeting with family members,” Christine Haughney reports.

Dylan Byers has the whole memo, which follows increasing speculation that the Sulzberger-Ochs family might be tempted to follow the lead of the Washington, D.C. Graham family and sell their newspaper. Read more

Tools:
1 Comment