« | »

Jill Abramson Wasn’t/Was Paid Less Than Predecessor

From the Politico:

Sulzberger: ‘Not true’ Abramson paid less – POLITICO.com

By HADAS GOLD | 5/15/14

New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. said in a memo to staff that "it is simply not true" that former executive editor Jill Abramson’s pay was significantly less than her predecessors, as had been reported.

"It is simply not true that Jill’s compensation was significantly less than her predecessors. Her pay is comparable to that of earlier executive editors. In fact, in 2013, her last full year in the role, her total compensation package was more than 10% higher than that of her predecessor, Bill Keller, in his last full year as Executive Editor, which was 2010. It was also higher than his total compensation in any previous year," Sulzberger wrote on Thursday.

Sulzberger called reports about the disparity "misinformation" and that he wanted to set the record straight…

"Disinformation" from a former NYT editor? How is that possible?

But, thankfully, Ms. Abramson is not taking ‘Pinch’s’ lies sitting down. She appears to have given her salary figures to her amanuensis at the New Yorker.

Again, from Hadas Gold at the Politico:

Report: Abramson salary $100K below male editor

By HADAS GOLD | May 15, 2014

Former New York Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson was paid substantially less than her male counterparts — sometimes by as much as $100,000 — for the last 14 years of her career, according to salary figures published by The New Yorker’s Ken Auletta on Thursday evening.

Auletta, who was the first to report that compensation may have had something to do with Abramson’s firing, reports that as executive editor Abramson’s starting salary in 2011 was $475,000, compared to her predecessor Bill Keller’s salary of $559,000. Her salary was raised to $503,000, then raised again to $525,000 after she protested.

Prior to that, Abramson’s salary as managing editor, $398,000, was less than that of the managing editor for news operations, John Geddes. And Auletta reports her salary as Washington bureau chief was $100,000 less than that of former Washington bureau chief Phil Taubman…

Why any of these hacks are paid so lavishly is beyond us. No wonder the NYT is always on the brink of bankruptcy.

Still, what a quandary. Whom should we believe? The publisher of the NYT or its former executive editor? We know from long and bitter experience that the actual truth means nothing to either one of them.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, May 16th, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

One Response to “Jill Abramson Wasn’t/Was Paid Less Than Predecessor”

  1. GetBackJack says:

    Imagine my interest

« Front Page | To Top
« | »