Jill Abramson and The New York Times - Ethical issue

Via thewrap.com

Summary

Jill Abramson hired a lawyer to discuss with the management of New York Times (NYT) the discrepancies between her salary and that of her predecessor, Bill Keller. Weeks later, with no scandal or journalistic disaster, and a recent win of four Pulitzers at once – a huge deal for the paper, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., NYT’s publisher, fired Abramson abruptly. Under Abramson’s executive editorial leadership, the paper won eight Pulitzers, strengthened its journalistic clout, increased its readership and doubled its stock price.

One of the reasons she was fired was because Dean Banquet, her managing editor and successor, felt she was an insensitive executive. Banquet and Abramson had competed for the executive editor position, but Abramson was given the job. Recently, Abramson sought to hire Janine Gibson as digital editor, after Sulzberger and the board already signed up on it. She set up a meeting for Gibson and Banquet to meet together and discuss the Times’ future. But, Banquet felt offended to be left out of the hiring decision. Banquet then complained to Sulzberger that he didn’t feel appreciated as Abramson failed to let him understand where he fits in the Times’ hierarchy.

The second reason is because NYT staff, especially newsroom journalists, did not feel too good about Abramson’s leadership style. The staff thought she was polarizing, brusque, bitchy and pushy. Mercurial is said to be a word used a lot by the staff to describe Abramson. This a challenge continually experienced by working women and female bosses. Natalie Nougayrede, former editor-in-chief of Le Monde, was recently forced out of her paper for the same reason. 

All these beg the question: would Abramson have been fired if she were male? Would her “mercurial” leadership style have been grounds enough for a fire? Especially when NYT has a rich history of brusque and mercurial male executive editors? We must ask ourselves if it is ethical to treat female bosses differently from their male counterparts. Or, if it is ethical to punish women for the characteristics we applaud and award in men?

Stakeholders

Jill Abramson: although silent about the firing, Abramson is majorly affected by this incident. She is back to searching for employment and figuring the next step of her career. She also has to deal with allegations of being difficult to work with.

New York Times: with this shifted focus from its journalistic work, NYT is affected by this incident. Much light has been placed on its patriarchal organization. I also assume its human resources department would have a difficult time recruiting female journalists from now on. Janine Gibson herself told friends that she would never have considered NYT if she knew Abramson was leaving. Overall, it’s not a good look for NYT.

Arthur Sulzberger, Jr: as NYT’s publisher and the one who fired Abramson, Sulzberger has been floundering in managing this crisis. His two statements trying to debunk the rumors that Abramson was fired for her gender have not being sufficient in dousing the speculations. It’s worthy to consider Sulzberger’s family’s patriarchal system of inheritance.  His father, Arthur Sulzberger, Sr., inherited the paper over his sister, Ruth Holmberg, who left to become Chattanooga Times’ publisher instead.  Only the male family members of Adolph Ochs have been handed the reins to NYT. As much, it is not farfetched to conclude that Sulzberger could be sexist without intending to be sexist.

Dean Banquet: no matter how little his actions contributed to the firing of Abramson, Banquet’s promotion comes with its baggage. His actions as executive editor will be closely monitored by the public. He will also be compared to Abramson for a while. While he is the nicer of the two, will Times be as successful during his tenure as it was under Abramson? Only time will tell.

Female Journalists: already acknowledged as a minority in the industry, female journalist might settle for the status quo and not seek leadership positions, fearing that the breaking of the glass ceiling is a myth and not worth it. This also applies to every woman in the work force. There have been several articles, even written by women, suggesting that companies not hire women to leadership positions. They postulate that when women get fired, companies will be called sexist no matter what went on.

Solution

First, the public and NYT must refrain from blaming Abramson. A standard ‘difference of opinion’ would have sufficed as an explanation for the firing. Instead, Sulzberger blamed Abramson’s leadership style and loss of newsroom support. Two, NYT needs to be transparent about Keller, Abramson and Banquet’s total package and the reason for the discrepancies between them. It’s a fact that Abramson’s salary and pension was lesser than Keller’s. But, her bonus compensation, based on company’s performance, could be higher. And, her pension could be smaller due to some organizational cut, for all we know. All these are understandable reasons for the discrepancies. NYT would have cleared itself of blame if it had laid out these contingencies clearly. Three, NYT needs to be responsible to its future hires. It needs to accept that its system is patriarchal and commit to making it modern, more befitting of 2014.

Auletta, Ken. “Jill Abramson, Arthur Sulzberger, and the New York Times: What Went Wrong?” Newyorker.com. The New Yorker, 14 May 2014. Web. 16 May 2014. <http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2014/05/jill-abramson-and-the-times-what-went-wrong.html>