Why Abramson's Firing Triggers Larger Questions About NYT's Future

Image: Why Abramson's Firing Triggers Larger Questions About NYT's Future

Thursday, 15 May 2014 01:46 PM

By Melanie Batley

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
  Copy Shortlink
Jill Abramson's sudden dismissal as executive editor of The New York Times on Wednesday will have a lasting mark on the newspaper, adding to its struggle to stay afloat in the digital media era, according to Politico.

The political news website said three factors guarantee that the decision the way it was carried out will "ricochet longer and more intensely than just another job shuffle atop a newspaper."

The "uncommonly bloody manner of execution," Politico said, was notable. While  Abramson had been criticized for a harsh personality, "it was no harsher than the treatment handed her by former patrons," according to the story by John F. Harris, Politico's editor in chief, and Hadas Gold.

The firing was abrupt with no attempt to disguise that it was involuntary, and scant mention was made of her achievements, "which included eight Pulitzer Prizes under her watch," Politico said.

Instead, Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. simply said he was forced to dismiss her because of "an issue with management in the newsroom." Sulzberger replaced Abramson with Dean Baquet, the managing editor. He became the first African American to become top editor at the Times.

There will also be a renewed interest in the issue of gender in the workplace and the treatment of women, Politico said. Abramson was the first woman to lead the Times and questions are being raised whether discrimination against her gender was at the root of the intolerance about her style.

Finally, Politico says, questions will be raised about the leadership and long-term vitality of the newspaper given the destabilization at the top, and multiple changes in senior staff under Sulzberger in the last ten years.

Politico says these issues will continue to resonate within the media even though it is still unclear what precisely was behind Sulzberger's decision to fire Abramson, who was highly respected by defenders and rivals alike.

"The question remains: Was there something new or just an accumulation of doubts about her management style that have been percolating in a semi-public fashion? Did a dispute over compensation, itself infused with overtones of gender, hasten her dismissal — an assertion the Times denied?" Politico concluded.

Related Stories:


© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
  Copy Shortlink
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Country
Zip Code:
Privacy: We never share your email.
 
Hot Topics
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
Top Stories
You May Also Like

Fleitz: Extending Iran Nuclear Talks Prolongs Obama Enrichment Debacle

Monday, 24 Nov 2014 16:46 PM

The new deadline for nuclear talks with Iran is only marginally better than a bad deal since it will extend a terrible i . . .

Taliban Strength, Afghan Army Failures Spur Growing US Role

Monday, 24 Nov 2014 16:16 PM

As U.S. forces withdraw from Afghanistan, there are mounting questions about the ability of Afghan security forces to pr . . .

Hagel's Abrupt Exit Unique for Cabinet Member From 'Other Party'

Monday, 24 Nov 2014 15:54 PM

As unexpected as the news was Monday that Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel was resigning, what is even more stunning is  . . .

Most Commented

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved