I don't really have a fresh take on this New York Times/Jill Abramson story. The claim by Ken Auletta of The New Yorker that she got rosswise with top management in part because she was perceived as "pushy," and especially because she complained the discrepancy between her pay and that of her male predecessor, seems significant, especially when statements from a Times spokesperson's account of those discrepancies kept changing (we were told that Abramson's compensation "was not less" than Bill Keller's, then that it "was not meaningfully less," then that it was "directly comparable," whatever the hell that means. The Times itslf says she was trying to hire a co-managing editor to work alongside Dean Baquet, the subordinate who'll now succeed her, and didn't Baquet. Is consultthat "pushy"? Yeah -- the way a lot of male bosses are.
I've seen nothing but scorn for the Times from online liberals. But I think Adam Serwer nailed it:
Preview of the next week of writing on this: Liberals say sexism is real, conservatives say liberals are the real sexists.— AdamSerwer (@AdamSerwer) May 14, 2014
Yup -- looky here, it's Allahpundit at Hot Air:
... if you've been wondering what that mysterious smell is this afternoon, there's your answer: It's a Category Five sh*tstorm on the horizon, moving at ferocious speed towards America's most famous liberal newspaper.Right -- the Times falling short on liberal ideals is so disillusioning to us because we've never, ever had reason to criticize the paper until now. Oh, and the fact that an institution we find more or less compatible with our principles could be run by suits who violate those principles? It never occurred to us before!
No need to pop the popcorn. I've made plenty. Behold the war on women....
In the interest of making this as miserable as possible for the Times, I'm calling it sexism. Straight up.
... deliciously schadenfreudean....
Fortunately, the right won't spend much time on this -- there are new IRS and Benghazi non-stories to flog! So this moment will pass.