New York Times Fires Female Editor for Demanding Same Pay as Male Editor

The New York Times denounced Republicans for "refusing to close the pay gap for women"

It's okay. The New York Times is a liberal media outlet. There's nothing wrong when liberals wage a War on Women. Just ask Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton.

Sulzberger had fired Abramson, and he did not try to hide that. In a speech to the newsroom on Wednesday afternoon, he said, “I chose to appoint a new leader of our newsroom because I believe that new leadership will improve some aspects …”

Abramson chose not to attend the announcement, and not to pretend that she had volunteered to step down.

Several weeks ago, I’m told, 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.

“She confronted the top brass,” one close associate said, and this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was “pushy,” a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect.

A third associate told me, “She found out that a former deputy managing editor”—a man—“made more money than she did” while she was managing editor. “She had a lawyer make polite inquiries about the pay and pension disparities, which set them off.”

Sulzberger is known to believe that the Times, as a financially beleaguered newspaper, needed to retreat on some of its generous pay and pension benefits.

A new leadership that will improve some aspects of the New York Times' troubled fiscal situation.

Though either way it's only a matter of time before the paper is bought by some dot com billionaire, just like the Washington Post.

Meanwhile here is one of the billion New York Times stories denouncing Republicans for "refusing to close the pay gap for women". But much like Obama, the New York Times says one thing and does another.

Some Republicans have chided Mr. Obama for pointing out the wage gap when the White House has one of its own. Female White House staff members make 88 cents on average for every $1 male employees earn, the American Enterprise Institute discovered. Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, has awkwardly noted that that is better than the national average and that men and women in the same positions earn the same salary.

But instead of becoming defensive and trying to explain away the discrepancy, Mr. Obama should simply say the White House has to do better and present the lag for what it is: more evidence that the problem persists even in workplaces committed to equal treatment.

Like the New York Times