Why was Jill Abramson fired as Executive Editor from the NYTimes? (I have to admit, I didn't know that it had happened. I stopped reading the NYTimes on principle after their remarkable--and never corrected--hatchet job on the Duke lacrosse players...)
The story appears to be that she actually believed that the male "Progressives" who run the NYTimes, the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party, actually believed the stuff they always say about equal pay for women.
Clearly, they do not. And if some "girl" does try to the pay she deserves, she is "pushy" and gets fired. Wow.
With a nod to Susan L.
The story appears to be that she actually believed that the male "Progressives" who run the NYTimes, the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party, actually believed the stuff they always say about equal pay for women.
Clearly, they do not. And if some "girl" does try to the pay she deserves, she is "pushy" and gets fired. Wow.
With a nod to Susan L.
3 comments:
They never apologized for their hatchet job on the Duke Lacrosse players falsely accused of rape?
I suppose they've done this sort of thing ever since Walter Duranty back in the 1930s. I don't suppose they've ever apologized for Duranty's false reporting covering up the horrors of Stalin's USSR.
You have it all wrong...
This is either more proof that the media is actually run by evil capitalists.
OR
It's proof that equal pay should be legislated since even progressive corporate businessmen can't resist paying women less than men. If the New York Times can't achieve this without the force of law, how can we expect less well-intentioned businesses to act any better? A similar argument can be made for environmental regulation -- if even Al Gore owns a giant house that wastes a ton of energy as well as mines that dump mercury into rivers, how can we expect less enlightened folks to act any better? The only action is to ban 100 watt light bulbs.
Here's a comment I put up at another blog which asked the same question:
There’s plenty of pressure on management to explain all kinds of floundering: my memory is that the Ochsulzberger descendants are about 300, and the NYT company was worth about $8 billion when Pinch took over, and the profits were split among the 300. Pinch has ridden it down to $1 billion, while paying himself a very nice salary. NYT profits in recent years have been in the tens of millions, not in the hundreds. So he’s had the fun and salary of running a giant paper, and his cousins have seen their inheritance swooshing towards the drain. I’m going to bet on, ‘trying to show my grouchy cousins that I’m doing my best’, rather than sexism. dave.s.
Post a Comment