Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Trending Stories

Our Members

Many thanks to Allen Ressler and Elizabeth Mitchell some of our many supporters.


Most Commented


    Mind the gap, Jill Abramson. The pay gap for women.

    Guest Opinion: The dismissal of The New York Times' editor raises worrisome questions about media and pay issues in Seattle and the country.
    Abramson: "pushy" for equality?

    Abramson: "pushy" for equality? Creative Commons

    If speculative reports are accurate, Jill Abramson, the fired New York Times executive editor, may want to join Seattle’s “No Wage Gap” campaign. 

    Abramson was dismissed abruptly Wednesday, even though she’d only been on the job since 2011, and reports suggest she might not have gotten the same pay as her male predecessors.

    Inquiring minds ask: What led to Abramson’s firing? The New York Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. told the hastily gathered staff meeting that it was because of “an issue with management in the newsroom.” Sources close to the publisher talked about mounting tensions between the editor and the publisher and said Abrahamson was “polarizing and mercurial.”

    The latter two charges sound familiar to those of us who grew up in Northwest newsrooms. Having served under maybe a dozen top editors at The Seattle Times and Seattle Post-Intelligencer, I can scarcely remember one editor who wasn’t eventually accused of being mercurial, if not partisan, arbitrary and out-of-touch.  

    Polarizing and mercurial are textbook definitions of an editor. Few editors here were much loved beyond their first few days. The new editor (would-be savior) would arrive to rescue the paper from financial disaster and also from the evil, puppy-kicking machinations of the old editor. In the beginning, as at The New York Times on Wednesday, there would be the customary standing ovation for the new editor. Staff would know that things would be better under the new guy — hardly ever, in my day, would it be a gal.

    And therein lies the premise of a piece by media reporter Ken Auletta in the New Yorker. Auletta, who has covered Abramson’s career (he wrote a profile of her in the New Yorker in 2011), says he was told that Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and even before that, as managing editor, were “considerably” less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs.

    Sources told Auletta that Abramson had confronted top brass about the differential, leading to management’s alleged narrative that she was “pushy.” Sounds like an echo of the gender excuses heard by woman journalists over the years. Certainly it was true in the Northwest; probably equally so in the Northeast.

    Gender gaps in news coverage — kind of like other ills such as smoking and occasional self-medication — were common. Pay, too, was very much a consideration. Although Seattle papers were unionized in the late 1930s, meaning that reporters — male and female — received generally comparable pay, depending on length of service, there was discretionary pay for columnists and editors (almost exclusively an old boys’ club unless you were supervising the old women’s page).

    There apparently were other issues in the Abramson story. She had hired a number of women editors at the New York Times, including the paper’s first woman public editor. She’d also attempted to hire The Guardian’s Janine Gibson, planning apparently to install her alongside her then-managing editor Dean Baquet, who had originally been passed over when Abramson was promoted and who, not surprisingly, has since been appointed her successor.

    Coincidentally, Wednesday’s news also covered the dismissal of the woman editor at Le Monde, Natalie Nougayrède. It seems this week has been declared “fire a female editor week”.

    Journalism has ever been a difficult profession for women. Women journalists could all tell stories about basic indignities. There were times when women reporters were told that they couldn’t cover City Hall, the state Legislature or Congress because they couldn’t follow the mostly male officials into the men’s room. Even today at The New York Times, arguably the nation’s premier newspaper, the bylines are 69 percent male.

    The firing of Jill Abramson may not stop traffic in Seattle, but it should. It matters that a paper of record discarded its woman editor over “brusque” and demanding behavior, for which male editors would receive awards, if not bonuses. The news we depend on in a democracy is too important to allow it to remain a male-only sinecure.

    In Seattle we have been addressing the nation’s largest metropolitan gender gap (women get 73 cents on the dollar).  We’ve been working on repairing that gap at City Hall, where it’s narrower  — 90 cents on the dollar — but still not optimal. Some of us wear “NO wage gap” campaign buttons. Be glad to send one to Jill Abramson, may she wear it when she takes on her next media challenge.

    Jean Godden is a member of the Seattle City Council and chair of its Libraries, Utilities, and Center Committee. She was a columnist and chronicler of Seattle life for many years at both Seattle daily newspapers. She has endorsed state Sen. Ed Murray for mayor. You can follow her on Twitter: @jean_godden.

    Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!


    Posted Sat, May 17, 8:08 a.m. Inappropriate

    All of the article "could" be true or it "could" be false. So the writer hasn't offered a shred of proof to substantiate her claims. Good thing it's an opinion piece because as a factual news story, it sucks. But passing judgement before all the facts are in hasn't ever stopped the presses, which is why 60% of Americans don't trust the media. It's that too much opinion and not enough facts or fact checking.



    Posted Sat, May 17, 5:08 p.m. Inappropriate

    "[R]eports suggest she might not have gotten the same pay as her male predecessors,' you write. Then you suggest that "inquiring minds" want to know if there is merit in this. Well, you got half of it correct. We would like to know and you provide us with nothing.

    Perhaps you could have reached out to Ms. Abramson or Mr. Sulzberger. If you had done so, at least you would have gotten the following:

    "On Saturday, Mr. Sulzberger said, as he did in his earlier public statement, that Ms. Abramson’s pay package in her last year was 10 percent higher than Mr. Keller’s [her predecessor]. 'Equal pay for women is an important issue in our country — one that The New York Times often covers,' Mr. Sulzberger wrote. 'But it doesn’t help to advance the goal of pay equality to cite the case of a female executive whose compensation was not in fact unequal.'”

    When you were a journalist, you were known for the soft column--wit and soft subjects. As you contend in your piece, not much has changed.

    Posted Sun, May 18, 2:33 p.m. Inappropriate

    Pay issue aside, I assumed the Wednesday firing of the New York Times' editor had something to do with the Frontline piece that aired on Tuesday night.

    Dos Equis

    Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

    Join Crosscut now!
    Subscribe to our Newsletter

    Follow Us »