A dispute over pay was reportedly one of the reasons behind Jill Abramson's firing from The New York Times.
A few hours after Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. made the surprise announcement he "chose to appoint a new leader" and replace Abramson with managing editor Dean Baquet Wednesday afternoon, the New Yorker's Ken Auletta reported her departure was preceded by a confrontation over her compensation. Auletta wrote that an unnamed "close associate" of Abramson said she "discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, 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." After this revelation, Auletta said the associate claimed Abramson "confronted the top brass."
New York Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy disputed this account.
"Jill's total compensation as executive editor was not meaningfully less than Bill Keller's, so that is just incorrect," Murphy wrote in an email to Business Insider. "Her pension benefit, like all Times employees, is based on her years of service and compensation. The pension benefit was frozen in 2009."
However, Auletta also noted"another friend" of Abramson's said the pay gap between her and Keller was "closed" after the confrontation. When asked specifically whether Abramson's compensation was "meaningfully less" than Keller's before she raised the issue, Murphy reiterated her claim the report of a pay gap was incorrect.
"It was never meaningfully less," she said of Abramson's compensation.
Auletta claimed other Times staffers were concerned about the pay disparity between Abramson and Keller. He said it brought up "ugly memories"of a 1974 lawsuit female employees made against the paper due to allegations of sex discrimination in hiring, pay, and promotion.
On Twitter, NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik subsequently confirmed Auletta's report. Folkenflik also noted unspecified "figures at Times wonder what role gender ultimately played in (Abramson's) ouster."
Both Folkenflik and Auletta cited other factors behind Abramson's exit from the Times. Auletta said Sulzberger had a "frustration" with Abramson that was "growing" due to her clashes with the company's CEO over advertising and her push to hire a deputy managing editor to oversee the paper's web properties. Folkenflik also cited her clashes with the CEO, a perceived "rudeness," and her relatively high profile, which he said Sulzberger "didn't love."
View Folkenflik's tweets about Abramson's firing below.
Some key points about the firing of NYT exec ed Jill Abramson by publisher/Chairman Arthur Sulzberger....
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 20141. Sulzberger had initially been conflicted about picking Abramson - for top slot - AS had long seen Baquet as a future exec editor
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 20141a Baquet left NYT in 2000 to become LAT managing editor & then top editor; he rejoined in 07 after defying Tribune execs over further cuts
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 20141b. Baquet's ultimate willingness to defy corp chiefs on cuts in LA gave business-side execs some agita.
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 20142. Abramson had a relatively high profile as Times exec editor, in significant part because of path-breaking nature of her appointment
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 20142a. Sulzberger didn't love that profile
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 20142b. This continued in interviews about her role as a "first" - though she tended to tamp such discussions - and her book about her dog.
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 20142c. a significant number of journalists who worked for her - even some in editing ranks - found her brusque to point of rudeness
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 20142d none of which should discount her ability as a journalist - or Q of whether a male exec editor would find his manner so scrutinized
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 20143. Over time, Abramson lost currency with Sulzberger. She told one associate in recent weeks that her job wouldn't last forever.
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 20144. She also had aliented the still relatively new CEO Mark Thompson, who arrived from tenure atop BBC
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 20144a Thompson was pushing a video-heavy strategy for NYT's digital push; Abramson feared would be a diversion of time and energy
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 20144b. Thompson also livid that Abramson sent investigative ed to UK to see if he had any role in BBC's brewing child abuse coverup scandal
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 20145. Sulzberger's son Arthur Gregg Sulzberger & colleagues wrote report saying NYT had not been bold enough in innovating digitally
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 20145a. Abramson not digital native -but had steeped herself in digital side before taking over; NYT had taken great digital strides under her
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 20146. According to New Yorker's Ken Auletta, final straw was discovery she was being paid considerably less than predecessor @billkeller2014
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 20146a: Auletta reports she demanded top press pay her comparably http://t.co/vLE51HTzZG
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 20147a. previous departures fit two patterns: Howell Raines unceremoniously dumped amid Jayson Blair plagiarism/fabrication scandal
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 20147b. Keller allowed effectively to pick his time to depart, and a victory lap. This fits neither
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 20148. Abramson's firing most closely resembles that of former NYT Co CEO Janet Robinson - who oversaw introduction of now-heralded paywall
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 20148a. Robinson paid a monarch's ransom for severence but essentially ushered out of the building
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 20148b Brutal for Sulzberger to deny Abramson a chance to address the troops - to relive her highs and lows as a top editor for 16+ years
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 20149. Even though Abramson's appointment was based on journalistic merit, figures at Times wonder what role gender ultimately played in ouster.
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 201410. I can now report that I have independently confirmed that Abramson did indeed challenge corporate brass over what she saw as unequal pay
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) May 14, 2014This story was updated at 7:07 p.m. to include Folkenflik's tweets.