May 15, 2014

Just remember this when the NY Times whines about the "pay gap"

Or the "War on Women." The NY Times axes its first female chief:

In the wake of Wednesday’s news, The New Yorker’s Ken Auletta reported that Sulzberger had grown frustrated with Abramson after she pushed for more pay upon learning that her salary was significantly lower than that of her male predecessors. In response to that report, Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy told POLITICO: “Jill’s total compensation as executive editor was not less than Bill Keller’s, so that is just incorrect. Her pension benefit, like all Times employees, is based on her years of service and compensation. The pension benefit was frozen in 2009.”

Some high-level female staffers also voiced frustration with Sulzberger’s decision to fire the paper’s first female executive editor. Both national editor Alison Mitchell and and assistant managing editor Susan Chira suggested in a private meeting that Abramson’s firing “wouldn’t sit well with a broad swath of female Times journalists,” according to a Capital New York report.

What Ms. Murphy says above may certainly have merit. But so does virtually every other reason why a woman may make less than a male counterpart. The Times has rarely conceded this fact; instead, it has engaged in (like most of the Left) politically correct sound bites, like the oh-so monotonous "Women only make 77 cents to a man's dollar!!" So let the Times stew in a broth of their own making. Like, check out the following via Mediaite:

This situation is not unlike the ridiculous Media Matters fighting an attempt by its employees to unionize. The so-called "conservative media bias" watchdog site has long criticized the GOP's stance on unions, and has been quite favorable towards Democrat policies on same.

Posted by Hube at May 15, 2014 07:54 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

Post a comment

Remember personal info?