Dean Baquet, who has replaced Jill Abramson as the executive editor at the NYT, told owner Arthur Sulzberger that Sulzberger had to choose between them. If Sulzberger didn’t fire Abramson, Baquet, the first African American managing editor at the paper, would quit, claiming “humiliation” over the job offer to Janine Gibson, who was going to become co-managing editor for digital.
Sulzberger, knowing he had to face a firestorm over an African American or a woman, decided to fire the woman. He may have rationalized his choice by telling himself that women aren’t really a “minority,” like African Americans. But when it comes to getting jobs like executive editor of the Times, women sure as hell are a minority.
The latest explanation coming from the NYT about Jill Abramson’s firing as executive editor is that she deceived owner Arthur Sulzberger. Specifically, Sulzberger believed that Abramson told managing editor Dean Baquet (now Abramson’s successor) that she had offered a job to Janine Gibson to become co-managing editor for the digital side of the paper. But Abramson had told Baquet only that she was thinking about offering Gibson a job and hadn’t told him the job title, which would make Gibson his equal.
Where this story makes no sense to me is the part where Abramson sent Baquet to have lunch with Gibson on May 5, with Gibson already having been offered a co-managing editor position, and Baquet not knowing. Supposedly he found out what was going on from Gibson, complained to Sulzberger, and Abramson got fired.
If Abramson was trying to keep Baquet in the dark, why on earth would she have arranged for him to meet with Gibson? How could she possibly think this would go well for her?
“And then there is Paul Krugman, who would be the most influential columnist in the country if it weren’t for the fact that elected officials routinely refuse to listen to him. Poor Paul Krugman, our Sisyphus of elite opinion, eternally doomed to the same arguments with the same people, forever.”
Alex Pareene, Salon, in an article arguing that the NYT should dump its op-ed writers and start over.
The NYT has an in-depth, knock-your-socks-off, must-read story about Benghazi by David Kirkpatrick:
“Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.
“The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.”
I’m sure Darrell Issa and Fox News will be quick to apologize!
Perhaps in response to the NYT‘s front-page story based on their leaked copy of Fred Davis’ proposed ad campaign, Davis’ company, Strategic Perceptions, has announced that the plan to attack President Obama based on Rev. Wright has not been approved by Joe Ricketts, whose Super PAC would be paying for it.
But the NYT was careful to call it a “proposal” and said that the ad campaign “is awaiting approval.”
Dick Cavett got it right when he said that Sarah Palin “seems to have no first language.”
Now, T. A. Frank, in yesterday’s NYT‘s SundayMagazine*, perfectly captures Herman Cain when he writes that “Herman Cain seems like someone who, quite frankly, has never opened a newspaper.”
Universal suffrage means that we put up with a lot of low-information voters. But this new and bizarre expectation that we will put up with low-information candidates for our highest offices, as John McCain expected us to do with Palin and Cain asks us to do now, is beyond the pale and an unacceptable threat to this country.
*See “‘I Still Don’t Plan on Going to Any Political-Correctness School'”