[PJ-Comix]

I volunteer my service to the New York Times as Executive Editor for just half of Abramson's salary. Of course, I would need to telecommute from South Florida so as to avoid the high New York taxes as well as be able to work from home in my pajamas. As a fringe benefit I would throw in my services as a humor writer for nothing extra.

[1Old Pro]

Sounds like the disparity was insignificant and perhaps she was paid more. o, is she just using the gender card?

[circlecity]

I also note that Keller had worked for the NYT a lot longer than Abramson when he got the positon and experience usually counts for extra pay.

[Resolute Conservative]

Set aside the premise that they worked hard to get there and earned their take, but I am getting kind of worn slick with people who make 5-20 times the income of most of our professional workforce whining about a few measly thousand dollars when Uncle Sam is raping the middle and upper-middle classes.

[ken5050]

I just read somewhere ( I’ll try and find the link) that the difference was more like $120,000 per year, and had been going on for a long time...when she was first hired as as executive editor, her second in command was making MORE than her at the time..

[Engineer1955]

Conservative Tree House reports Abramson was ousted “...because she has done the most sacrilegious offense to the towers of progdom, she exposed the falsehood behind the White House claims of transparency”.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/05/15/stay-sharp-fellow-members-of-the-resistance-most-are-assigning-the-wrong-motivation-to-the-firing-of-nyt-editor-jill-abramson/

[Political Junkie Too]

I posted this on Thursday.

---

I haven't seen anybody mention this yet, but just last week Jill Abramson was mentioned as #5 on this list of 5 Non-Fox News Journalists Who Won't Give Obama a Break.

Within a week, she's been fired.

Coincidence?

---

Now we know.

From the article:

---

His new statement cited a pattern of behavior that included “arbitrary decision-making, a failure to consult and bring colleagues with her, inadequate communication and the public mistreatment of colleagues.”

[snip]

he ultimately concluded that “she had lost the support of her masthead colleagues and could not win it back.” The decision to replace her, he said, was “for reasons having nothing to do with pay or gender.”

---

I guess we now know why she "lost support" of her "colleagues." If she had "consulted" and "bring colleagues with her," she would not have been a "journalist who won't give Obama a break." Her colleagues wouldn't have let her.

It's all so very clear now.

-PJ