Jill Abramson was widely praised when she was named the new executive editor of The New York Times. But now, oh how things have changed! At least, according to Politico. In a report citing “a dozen current and former members of the editorial staff,” Abramson is labeled as “condescending,” “stubborn,” “impossible,” and “very, very unpopular.”
Interestingly enough, the piece starts with an anecdote about Dean Baquet — the only non-anonymous staffer who spoke with Politico — slamming his hand against Abramson’s office wall and acting like a petulant child. But never mind that! Abramson is the boss. And she’s a woman. So let’s focus on how mean she is:
In one meeting, Abramson was upset with a photograph that was on the homepage. Rather than asking for a change to be made after the meeting, she turned to the relevant editor and, according to sources with knowledge of the meeting, said bluntly, ‘I don’t know why you’re still here. If I were you, I would leave now and change the photo.’
Why, that sounds absolutely devastating! It’s like Abramson is a boss and delegated duties to someone! The nerve of her.
Thankfully Baquet — aware of what Politico was gunning for with this piece — attempted to stem the tide by explaining, “I think there’s a really easy caricature that some people have bought into, of the bitchy woman character and the guy who is sort of calmer. That, I think, is a little bit of an unfair caricature.”
But wait! Let’s talk about all the terrible editorial decisions Abramson has made. Politico mentions the four Pulitzer’s the paper recently won, so that won’t do. Under Abramson, the Times has published “impressive and informative journalism,” wowed many with the interactive “Snow Fall” feature, and “continues to be a great paper.”
Hmm… What was the problem again? Oh, right. Some people at the Times don’t like working for a strong, smart, powerful woman.