_0.jpg?itok=4pl8nJPG)
Kelly McBride at Poynter.org reported former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson’s hour-long “keynote interview” at a women’s journalism conference in La Quinta, California. Among her newsworthy statements: “Hillary Clinton would make a good president.” McBride added: “Abramson said she enjoyed being unfettered enough to say that.”
This is interesting, since in July, Abramson complained Hillary expects the press to be "100 percent in her corner," especially if you're female:
Recently ousted New York Times editor Jill Abramson sat down with Katie Couric on Yahoo News Thursday afternoon to discuss her career at the Times, her firing, and her future plans. As expected, Couric wanted to center on the possible notion that Abramson being a female had everything to do with her firing. The former Today show co-host bent over backwards in an attempt to get the former editor to cry “sexism” as the reason for her termination from the newspaper.
“Are these qualities better tolerated in men than women,” Couric asked. “I don’t see gender as being the whole explanation, by any means, of what happened,” Abramson explained.
Barbara Boland at our sister site CNSNews.com reported that fired New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson appeared on Fox News on Wednesday night. On The Record host Greta van Susteren asked about President Obama's record on transparency. Abramson has repeatedly said Obama is the most secretive president she's covered, all the way back to Jimmy Carter.
Fox began the segment with clips of Obama promising a historically transparent administration. (Video below)
Eleanor Clift of The Daily Beast profiled former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson, and suggested she’s best known for asserting “the Obama administration is the most secretive of any she has covered, and in 22 years in Washington, that covers a lot of White Houses. She got plenty of grief from President Obama’s top aides in the aftermath, and while other journalists made the same observation, Abramson’s words carried weight, coming as they did from the prestigious newspaper’s first female top editor.”
Clift added “Two months after leaving the Times, in case anyone is wondering, she isn’t backing down from that assertion, but backing it up with concrete examples and inside anecdotes."
Last night (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), I pointed to the track record of Dean Baquet, who has ascended to the hallowed perch of executive editor at the New York Times, and observed that "someone who has clearly been a troubling and disruptive presence is now in charge."
Two incidents spanning seven years support my contention. The first occurred in 2006 at the Los Angeles Times, where Baquet, then that paper's editor, petulantly refused to make budget cuts the paper's Tribune Company parent demanded, took his complaints public in the paper itself, metaphorically barricaded himself in his office, and dared the Trib to fire him (they did, two months later). The second occurred in April of last year, when Baquet, now at the New York Times, got into an argument with now deposed Executive Editor Jill Abramson, "burst out of Abramson’s office, slammed his hand against a wall ... stormed out of the newsroom ... (and was) gone for the rest of the day." Now we learn from David Carr at the Old Gray Lady itself that, in essence, Baquet did an "it's her or me" number on Abramson (HT Ann Althouse) to grease the skids for her firing.
Appearing as a guest on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Bill Kristol, editor of the conservative publication the Weekly Standard, mocked liberals’ outrage over the firing of Jill Abramson as editor of The New York Times.
Speaking on Sunday, May 18, Kristol remarked that liberals should be angry at one person, Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times: “Who is the they that's treating them [women] that way? Arthur Sulzberger. Mr. liberal, Mr. Democrat, Mr. political correctness.” [See video below.]
Via Mediaite, we learned New York Times publisher Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. issued a new statement Saturday on the controversy over the dumping of executive editor Jill Abramson. He said the issue wasn’t pay, but Abramson’s management style causing a loss of “the support of her masthead colleagues.”
“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.”
Although NewsBusters has documented The New York Times’s commitment to pushing a liberal agenda for years, it took a discrimination scandal inside the paper itself for the MSNBC network to air a liberal journalist admitting what everyone already knows but liberals are loath to confess: The Times has a left-of-center tilt, despite its dogged persistence in claiming to be objective.
On the May 15 edition of Ronan Farrow Daily, former Times reporter Leslie Bennetts, author of the The Feminine Mistake, expressed her outrage at the allegation of wage discrimination among Times executives coming to light as a result of the sudden sacking of executive editor Jill Abramson. [see video below]
Is “The Gray Lady” that way because the sexist owners of The New York Times won’t pay her enough for a proper dye job? This and other delightfully schadenfreude-alicious questions are worth pondering now that the paper has “unexpectedly” fired executive editor Jill Abramson on May 14.
Abramson stepped into that role on September 2011, becoming the first female executive edtior at the Times, according to AdWeek. And according to several reports at least part of the reason was because she made a fuss about being paid less than her predecessor.
Jill Abramson of the New York Times denied that her newspaper has a liberal bias during a Monday interview with Marlo Thomas of Huffington Post. Abramson asserted that the Times "reflects a very cosmopolitan, inclusive outlook, which can strike some readers as liberal," and later claimed that "the news pages are not ideological."
The executive editor zeroed in on the issue of gun control as her example of how the New York Times is supposedly balanced: [MP3 audio available here; video below the jump]
Thursday was a busy time for White House press secretary Jay Carney. First, he claimed that the toughest interview president Barack Obama had in 2012 was moderated by Comedy Central's Jon Stewart. As if that wasn't bizarre enough, he later stated that “there has never been a more transparent administration,” a situation that “creates headaches for us and ridiculous stories on Fox News.”
It didn't take long for Greta van Susteren, host of that channel's weeknight On the Record program, to come out swinging and post a message asking: ”White House delusional? Obsessed with Fox News Channel? Thinks we are the only ones that spotted this BS?”
Every Obama fan wanted on the guest list of the state dinner for French president Francois Hollande. So it was an extra-special favor for media figures to get the invite.
On the president’s very exclusive guest list Tuesday night: Rev. Al Sharpton of MSNBC, fake-conservative Stephen Colbert, New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson, CNN Worldwide president Jeff Zucker, and two White House correspondents: AP's Julie Pace, and Bloomberg's Julianna Goldman. That wasn’t all.