Was Jill Abramson Ousted for Being Too 'Pushy'? [Illustration]

We may earn a commission from links on this page.

On Wednesday The New York Times announced that executive editor Jill Abramson had been replaced by the newspaper’s managing editor, Dean Baquet.

In a piece entitled “Why Jill Abramson Was Fired,” New Yorker writer Ken Aulette describes a turbulent relationship between Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr, CEO Mark Thompson and Abramson.


While all three have so far denied any conflict, Aulette explains that several weeks ago, “Abramson 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.”

According to a close associate cited in the New Yorker piece, “‘[Abramson] confronted the top brass’” over the alleged inequity. Aulette elaborates, somewhat speculative, that “this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was ‘pushy,’ a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect.”


The New York Times has published a variety pieces reporting on the gender wage gap and encouraging women to take a calibrated approach to asking for a raise.

A spokesperson for the Times has since pushed back on the wage-gap allegation. “Jill’s total compensation as executive editor was not meaningfully less than Bill Keller’s, so that is just incorrect,” Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy told Politico Wednesday, adding “the reason for the departure was as we said earlier: Arthur’s concern over certain aspects of newsroom management.”


Andy is a graphics editor and cartoonist at Fusion.