The liberal NYT paid their female top editor less than their male top editor

[Oldstyle]

It's usually prudent to use 'in my opinion' when painting with such a broad political brush. For example, 'in my opinion' you don't know what you're talking about. However, I hear crap like this come out of the mouths of industry outsiders on a daily basis from both ends of the political spectrum. News flash: both 'this paper is ________- biased' arguments are equally obtuse.

EVERY single newspaper in the country is either a corporation and/or relies on corporate sponsorship. That's just the way it is. Having a distinct political agenda is usually bad for business, thus being as objective as possible is the only economically viable decision. If you ain't figured this out yet, you probably never will.

But, please, feel free to jabber on about things you know nothing about. It's entertaining to see.

Yea__ no. Everyone and their dog knows the political leanings of NYT. There's no need to accord such trivialities. Next time you blatantly condescend, try at least being right, dude.

My apologies. You're a superstar. But it sounds like you wouldn't know 'right' if it bit you in the head, dude. I know this might be a little hard to take, sparky, but 'Everyone' ≠ your uninformed opinion.

But heck, what do I know? Mine is only 20+ years of industry experience talking. Perhaps it *is* your dog that's more informed than the both of us.

Your 20+ years of industry experience tells you that the NY Times isn't a liberal paper these days? What industry would that be?

 

[JoeB131]

Typical crap from USMB libs. Make the argument about something else....How about you regard that the NYT salivates over stories of men being paid more and then does the same....mmmkay.

actually, it appears she was fired for making decisions in contradiction to what the Owner and CEO wanted, and even misled them on certain issues.

That said, what was she being paid compared to what Bill Keller was being paid. I've yet to see anyone on either side of this lay the numbers out on the table.

Maybe she was a bitch. Maybe she was fired for good reason. But why is the newspaper that harps on discrepancy in pay among genders paying her less in the first place? That's a little thing known as hypocrisy, is it not?

No, not really.

Maybe Bill got paid more (if he did) because he was just better at his job.

Maybe he had more experience.

Maybe he was just better at negotiating his deal.

 

[AltamontRules]

Yea__ no. Everyone and their dog knows the political leanings of NYT. There's no need to accord such trivialities. Next time you blatantly condescend, try at least being right, dude.

My apologies. You're a superstar. But it sounds like you wouldn't know 'right' if it bit you in the head, dude. I know this might be a little hard to take, sparky, but 'Everyone' ≠ your uninformed opinion.

But heck, what do I know? Mine is only 20+ years of industry experience talking. Perhaps it *is* your dog that's more informed than the both of us.

Your 20+ years of industry experience tells you that the NY Times isn't a liberal paper these days? What industry would that be?

News media, and more specifically, newspapers. I've worked for papers that armchair pundits consider conservative-biased, even though in reality, they really ain't. I've worked for female publishers/editors that made a boatload more than their male counterparts. I've also seen the inverse. Pendulum swings both ways friend, and it's almost always a matter of an individual's personal politics making blanket statement for them, and they're usually pretty far off the mark.

Again, I'm also the sort that pretty much dismisses the '______-biased' train of thought on principle. ALL media bows to their corporate overlords, and politics always varies. It's not ideal, but it's a reality across the board in today's media, like it or not. It's simply business. I know exactly how the media's breads buttered, if you get my drift.

The real truth about Abramson's departure is between Abramson and the NYT. She claims 'sexism.' Well, that may be, but holy hell, think about the industry where she CHOSE to work when reevaluating an assessment. Old world views and boys club mentality are still alive and well, but that's constantly evolving. I refuse to believe she didn't know the score. It's not pretty or ideal, but it's reality.

The peanut gallery is still just that. Fun to listen to them vent from time to time, tho.

 

[Oldstyle]

My apologies. You're a superstar. But it sounds like you wouldn't know 'right' if it bit you in the head, dude. I know this might be a little hard to take, sparky, but 'Everyone' ≠ your uninformed opinion.

But heck, what do I know? Mine is only 20+ years of industry experience talking. Perhaps it *is* your dog that's more informed than the both of us.

Your 20+ years of industry experience tells you that the NY Times isn't a liberal paper these days? What industry would that be?

News media, and more specifically, newspapers. I've worked for papers that armchair pundits consider conservative-biased, even though in reality, they really ain't. I've worked for female publishers/editors that made a boatload more than their male counterparts. I've also seen the inverse. Pendulum swings both ways friend, and it's almost always a matter of an individual's personal politics making blanket statement for them, and they're usually pretty far off the mark.

Again, I'm also the sort that pretty much dismisses the '______-biased' train of thought on principle. ALL media bows to their corporate overlords, and politics always varies. It's not ideal, but it's a reality across the board in today's media, like it or not. It's simply business. I know exactly how the media's breads buttered, if you get my drift.

The real truth about Abramson's departure is between Abramson and the NYT. She claims 'sexism.' Well, that may be, but holy hell, think about the industry where she CHOSE to work when reevaluating an assessment. Old world views and boys club mentality are still alive and well, but that's constantly evolving. I refuse to believe she didn't know the score. It's not pretty or ideal, but it's reality.

The peanut gallery is still just that. Fun to listen to them vent from time to time, tho.

So you've been in the newspaper business for 20+ years and you're HONESTLY going to sit there and contend that the New York Times does not have a liberal bias these days? Seriously, Alt?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

When Jill Abramson found out she was being paid less than her predecessor, Bill Keller...she complained and then was subsequently fired.

NYT Publisher Sulzberger Says Abramson Firing Driven by Conduct - Bloomberg

So?

You negotiate your own salary, she settled for less.

true; but that doesnt excuse the massive hypocrisy on display at the New York Times

You expect liberals to be any other way?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Ever since the NYT did their "Yes, we'll joyfully repeat your every lie and call every antiwar person a traitor, Presdient Bush! We want that Iraq War as badly as you do!" song and dance, no sane person has regarded the NYT as liberal.

Meanwhile, the actual liberals are reaming the NYT over this. Good of the conservatives to finally notice, a week later.

Oh__ Is that what happened? You have a convenient memory.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

When Jill Abramson found out she was being paid less than her predecessor, Bill Keller...she complained and then was subsequently fired.

NYT Publisher Sulzberger Says Abramson Firing Driven by Conduct - Bloomberg

So?

You negotiate your own salary, she settled for less.

You didn't read the article. She found out about the pay discrepancy and then made an issue of it and was subsequently fired.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

It's usually prudent to use 'in my opinion' when painting with such a broad political brush. For example, 'in my opinion' you don't know what you're talking about. However, I hear crap like this come out of the mouths of industry outsiders on a daily basis from both ends of the political spectrum. News flash: both 'this paper is ________- biased' arguments are equally obtuse.

EVERY single newspaper in the country is either a corporation and/or relies on corporate sponsorship. That's just the way it is. Having a distinct political agenda is usually bad for business, thus being as objective as possible is the only economically viable decision. If you ain't figured this out yet, you probably never will.

But, please, feel free to jabber on about things you know nothing about. It's entertaining to see.

Yea__ no. Everyone and their dog knows the political leanings of NYT. There's no need to accord such trivialities. Next time you blatantly condescend, try at least being right, dude.

My apologies. You're a superstar. But it sounds like you wouldn't know 'right' if it bit you in the head, dude. I know this might be a little hard to take, sparky, but 'Everyone' ≠ your uninformed opinion.

But heck, what do I know? Mine is only 20+ years of industry experience talking. Perhaps it *is* your dog that's more informed than the both of us.

You don't have to be 'in the industry' to know what's what. It's fairly obvious.

 

[Truthmatters]

When Jill Abramson found out she was being paid less than her predecessor, Bill Keller...she complained and then was subsequently fired.

NYT Publisher Sulzberger Says Abramson Firing Driven by Conduct - Bloomberg

Corporate media you fool

 

[Lonestar_logic]

When Jill Abramson found out she was being paid less than her predecessor, Bill Keller...she complained and then was subsequently fired.

NYT Publisher Sulzberger Says Abramson Firing Driven by Conduct - Bloomberg

So?

You negotiate your own salary, she settled for less.

You didn't read the article. She found out about the pay discrepancy and then made an issue of it and was subsequently fired.

That doesn't matter. She agreed to her salary. Did she specify that it be based on what you predecessor made when she entered into that agreement? I doubt it.

Once she found out she asked for a raise, they said no. She started shit about it disrupting the entire organization so they had to let her go. Sounds logical and fair to me.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

So?

You negotiate your own salary, she settled for less.

You didn't read the article. She found out about the pay discrepancy and then made an issue of it and was subsequently fired.

That doesn't matter. She agreed to her salary. Did she specify that it be based on what you predecessor made when she entered into that agreement? I doubt it.

Once she found out she asked for a raise, they said no. She started shit about it disrupting the entire organization so they had to let her go. Sounds logical and fair to me.

That's just a crap load of supposition. I guess you like just hearing yourself talk.

 

[AltamontRules]

Your 20+ years of industry experience tells you that the NY Times isn't a liberal paper these days? What industry would that be?

News media, and more specifically, newspapers. I've worked for papers that armchair pundits consider conservative-biased, even though in reality, they really ain't. I've worked for female publishers/editors that made a boatload more than their male counterparts. I've also seen the inverse. Pendulum swings both ways friend, and it's almost always a matter of an individual's personal politics making blanket statement for them, and they're usually pretty far off the mark.

Again, I'm also the sort that pretty much dismisses the '______-biased' train of thought on principle. ALL media bows to their corporate overlords, and politics always varies. It's not ideal, but it's a reality across the board in today's media, like it or not. It's simply business. I know exactly how the media's breads buttered, if you get my drift.

The real truth about Abramson's departure is between Abramson and the NYT. She claims 'sexism.' Well, that may be, but holy hell, think about the industry where she CHOSE to work when reevaluating an assessment. Old world views and boys club mentality are still alive and well, but that's constantly evolving. I refuse to believe she didn't know the score. It's not pretty or ideal, but it's reality.

The peanut gallery is still just that. Fun to listen to them vent from time to time, tho.

So you've been in the newspaper business for 20+ years and you're HONESTLY going to sit there and contend that the New York Times does not have a liberal bias these days? Seriously, Alt?

Well, If you were to phrase it like this: 'do you believe some of the NYT editorials lean to the left there, Altamont?' Then I'd say why yes, Old Style, I suppose I believe some do.

However, these days the public more and more fails to distinguish editorial content from legitimate articles (IE. edited, fact-checked, objective reports) in the regular news cycle and then we are back to square one, debating the whole of a news corporation through the prism of one reader's political bias. I mean, c'mon friend - this debate has raged on since the invention of the printing press. If you've got your mind already made up, there's little I'm going to say or do to convince you otherwise.

Blanket statements are just that. Without a detailed analysis of specific examples, we're just spinning wheels here.

I could sit back and tell you that I think Fox News is the mouthpiece for the right. Would I be 'correct' in your eyes? Perhaps, if your personal political prism aligns with my statement. But in reality, we'd both be wrong.

 

[AltamontRules]

Yea__ no. Everyone and their dog knows the political leanings of NYT. There's no need to accord such trivialities. Next time you blatantly condescend, try at least being right, dude.

My apologies. You're a superstar. But it sounds like you wouldn't know 'right' if it bit you in the head, dude. I know this might be a little hard to take, sparky, but 'Everyone' ≠ your uninformed opinion.

But heck, what do I know? Mine is only 20+ years of industry experience talking. Perhaps it *is* your dog that's more informed than the both of us.

You don't have to be 'in the industry' to know what's what. It's fairly obvious.

You're the superstar here, who am I to judge, right? You already have it all figured out. Good for you. BTW: I like your avatar. Best. Show. Ever.

Bitch.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You didn't read the article. She found out about the pay discrepancy and then made an issue of it and was subsequently fired.

That doesn't matter. She agreed to her salary. Did she specify that it be based on what you predecessor made when she entered into that agreement? I doubt it.

Once she found out she asked for a raise, they said no. She started shit about it disrupting the entire organization so they had to let her go. Sounds logical and fair to me.

That's just a crap load of supposition. I guess you like just hearing yourself talk.

Well, if I could hear written words you may have a point.

Here's the facts as we know them. She found out her predecessor made more, she threw a fit about it and she was fired.

Did I miss anything?

 

[Disir]

It's a bunch of crap. It really is. They haven't been "liberal" in some time.

LMAO. They're as liberal as the day is long.

No. They haven't been in a long time. I was an avid reader of the NYT. The last straw was an article glorifying the World Bank and it's free market bs. That article was devoted to bamboo. You know, that group that insists on water privatization even though it's been a phenomenal failure. Another article was run that made a claim on charter schools as fact even though studies show the exact opposite. By that time, the NYT drummed up nothing more than revulsion.

Now, the above isn't all but those were the ones where I said, "K......done."

So, ya back to the op. I posted this story on another thread and she was paid less, had a knipshit, and subsequently was fired.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

News media, and more specifically, newspapers. I've worked for papers that armchair pundits consider conservative-biased, even though in reality, they really ain't. I've worked for female publishers/editors that made a boatload more than their male counterparts. I've also seen the inverse. Pendulum swings both ways friend, and it's almost always a matter of an individual's personal politics making blanket statement for them, and they're usually pretty far off the mark.

Again, I'm also the sort that pretty much dismisses the '______-biased' train of thought on principle. ALL media bows to their corporate overlords, and politics always varies. It's not ideal, but it's a reality across the board in today's media, like it or not. It's simply business. I know exactly how the media's breads buttered, if you get my drift.

The real truth about Abramson's departure is between Abramson and the NYT. She claims 'sexism.' Well, that may be, but holy hell, think about the industry where she CHOSE to work when reevaluating an assessment. Old world views and boys club mentality are still alive and well, but that's constantly evolving. I refuse to believe she didn't know the score. It's not pretty or ideal, but it's reality.

The peanut gallery is still just that. Fun to listen to them vent from time to time, tho.

So you've been in the newspaper business for 20+ years and you're HONESTLY going to sit there and contend that the New York Times does not have a liberal bias these days? Seriously, Alt?

Well, If you were to phrase it like this: 'do you believe some of the NYT editorials lean to the left there, Altamont?' Then I'd say why yes, Old Style, I suppose I believe some do.

However, these days the public more and more fails to distinguish editorial content from legitimate articles (IE. edited, fact-checked, objective reports) in the regular news cycle and then we are back to square one, debating the whole of a news corporation through the prism of one reader's political bias. I mean, c'mon friend - this debate has raged on since the invention of the printing press. If you've got your mind already made up, there's little I'm going to say or do to convince you otherwise.

Blanket statements are just that. Without a detailed analysis of specific examples, we're just spinning wheels here.

I could sit back and tell you that I think Fox News is the mouthpiece for the right. Would I be 'correct' in your eyes? Perhaps, if your personal political prism aligns with my statement. But in reality, we'd both be wrong.

You suppose you believe that? Seriously, stop being so coy and start getting real already. Nobody with half a brain is going to take you seriously.

 

[LiberalMedia]

When Jill Abramson found out she was being paid less than her predecessor, Bill Keller...she complained and then was subsequently fired.

NYT Publisher Sulzberger Says Abramson Firing Driven by Conduct - Bloomberg

What a surprise...men being paid more for the same work......

Not for the same work--for less work. From the article:

“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,” Sulzberger said in a statement released yesterday.

This strong, independent womyn made great decisions all on her own, didn't need to check with anyone else because she had her act together, didn't constantly micromanage her underlings thus allowing them free reign over their own work, and didn't put up with any BS from misogynistic male coworkers. The male chauvinist pigs at the New York Times were having extreme difficulties in keeping their glass ceiling from cracking, as evidenced by Abramson's successes in the face of NYT's blatant sexism, and they knew they had to fire hyr if they were going to continue to keep womyn everywhere down.

Having been finally publicly exposed as the den of womyn-hating basement-dwellers they are, NYT's days are numbered. It's only a matter of time before a massive lawsuit gets filed against them by Abramson (wrongful termination, discrimination, backpay, etc.) and every other strong, independent womyn they've ever financially and professionally raped in this manner.

Good riddance to that conservatard propaganda machine.

 

[LiberalMedia]

So you've been in the newspaper business for 20+ years and you're HONESTLY going to sit there and contend that the New York Times does not have a liberal bias these days? Seriously, Alt?

Well, If you were to phrase it like this: 'do you believe some of the NYT editorials lean to the left there, Altamont?' Then I'd say why yes, Old Style, I suppose I believe some do.

However, these days the public more and more fails to distinguish editorial content from legitimate articles (IE. edited, fact-checked, objective reports) in the regular news cycle and then we are back to square one, debating the whole of a news corporation through the prism of one reader's political bias. I mean, c'mon friend - this debate has raged on since the invention of the printing press. If you've got your mind already made up, there's little I'm going to say or do to convince you otherwise.

Blanket statements are just that. Without a detailed analysis of specific examples, we're just spinning wheels here.

I could sit back and tell you that I think Fox News is the mouthpiece for the right. Would I be 'correct' in your eyes? Perhaps, if your personal political prism aligns with my statement. But in reality, we'd both be wrong.

You suppose you believe that? Seriously, stop being so coy and start getting real already. Nobody with half a brain is going to take you seriously.

Those of us with a whole brain will take Altamont seriously. Just because someone doesn't throw the fits autists like you and Jizzmo do ("RAPTURE ANY DAY NOW! LIBRULLS CONTROL THE MEDIA! EVERYONE'S OUT TO GET ME! NO PROOF BUT BELIEVE IT ANYWAY!") doesn't mean they're not sincere. Non-alarmists deserve to be taken just as seriously as Chicken Littles like you--if not more so.

 

[Oldstyle]

When Jill Abramson found out she was being paid less than her predecessor, Bill Keller...she complained and then was subsequently fired.

NYT Publisher Sulzberger Says Abramson Firing Driven by Conduct - Bloomberg

What a surprise...men being paid more for the same work......

Not for the same work--for less work. From the article:

“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,” Sulzberger said in a statement released yesterday.

This strong, independent womyn made great decisions all on her own, didn't need to check with anyone else because she had her act together, didn't constantly micromanage her underlings thus allowing them free reign over their own work, and didn't put up with any BS from misogynistic male coworkers. The male chauvinist pigs at the New York Times were having extreme difficulties in keeping their glass ceiling from cracking, as evidenced by Abramson's successes in the face of NYT's blatant sexism, and they knew they had to fire hyr if they were going to continue to keep womyn everywhere down.

Having been finally publicly exposed as the den of womyn-hating basement-dwellers they are, NYT's days are numbered. It's only a matter of time before a massive lawsuit gets filed against them by Abramson (wrongful termination, discrimination, backpay, etc.) and every other strong, independent womyn they've ever financially and professionally raped in this manner.

Good riddance to that conservatard propaganda machine.

Now THAT rant is simply priceless! The New York Times is a "conservatard propaganda machine"? Really? I mean REALLY? I suppose MSNBC is as well? The Huffington Post? Think Progress?

Let's cut through all the bullshit here, Kiddies...the New York Times low balled the first woman Editor in Chief after pontificating about wage inequality for women for the better part of two decades. Shame on them. If you're going to talk the talk...then you need to walk the walk!

The New York Times is just as liberal TODAY as they were last week. The only thing that is different is that they've been exposed for playing the "do as I say...not as I do" game.

 

[LiberalMedia]

What a surprise...men being paid more for the same work......

Not for the same work--for less work. From the article:

“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,” Sulzberger said in a statement released yesterday.

This strong, independent womyn made great decisions all on her own, didn't need to check with anyone else because she had her act together, didn't constantly micromanage her underlings thus allowing them free reign over their own work, and didn't put up with any BS from misogynistic male coworkers. The male chauvinist pigs at the New York Times were having extreme difficulties in keeping their glass ceiling from cracking, as evidenced by Abramson's successes in the face of NYT's blatant sexism, and they knew they had to fire hyr if they were going to continue to keep womyn everywhere down.

Having been finally publicly exposed as the den of womyn-hating basement-dwellers they are, NYT's days are numbered. It's only a matter of time before a massive lawsuit gets filed against them by Abramson (wrongful termination, discrimination, backpay, etc.) and every other strong, independent womyn they've ever financially and professionally raped in this manner.

Good riddance to that conservatard propaganda machine.

Now THAT rant is simply priceless! The New York Times is a "conservatard propaganda machine"? Really? I mean REALLY? I suppose MSNBC is as well? The Huffington Post? Think Progress?

1. Yes really.
2. MSNBC usually has a liberal slant.
3. HuffPo is mostly moderate, with a few raging conservatard discriminators thrown in on occasion.
4. TP leans slightly to the left, albeit in a limp-wristed fashion.

Let's cut through all the bullshit here, Kiddies...the New York Times low balled the first woman Editor in Chief after pontificating about wage inequality for women for the better part of two decades. Shame on them. If you're going to talk the talk...then you need to walk the walk!

The New York Times is just as liberal TODAY as they were last week. The only thing that is different is that they've been exposed for playing the "do as I say...not as I do" game.

OK, find me a New York Times article "pontificating about wage inequality for women" written by the male chauvinist pig that paid Abramson less.