Sexism at The New York Times

Yesterday Politico ran a hit piece on New York Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson. It felt like a band of Times staffers had conspired to have her replaced by their preferred candidate, Times managing editor Dean Baquet.

While many Timespersons believe that their paper is still putting out a good news product, they are in despair at what they see as Abramson’s poor leadership and inept management skills.

Dylan Byers wrote in Politico:

In recent months, Abramson has become a source of widespread frustration and anxiety within the Times newsroom. More than a dozen current and former members of the editorial staff, all of whom spoke to POLITICO on the condition of anonymity, described her as stubborn and condescending, saying they found her difficult to work with. If Baquet had burst out of the office in a huff, many said, it was likely because Abramson had been unreasonable.

“Every editor has a story about how she’s blown up in a meeting,” one reporter said. “Jill can be impossible,” said another staffer.

Just a year and a half into her tenure as executive editor, Abramson is already on the verge of losing the support of the newsroom. Staffers commend her skills and her experience but question whether she has the temperament to lead the paper. At times, they say, her attitude toward editors and reporters leaves everyone feeling demoralized; on other occasions, she can seem disengaged or uncaring.

Of course, the news business is in serious trouble. Many who work for the Times worry about their future. The company does make money, but more and more journalists and editors are leaving the paper. Staffers naturally fear that their ship is sinking. Naturally, they blame the captain, in this case the leader of the news division.

Politico described the situation:

Caricature or portrait, such feelings are starting to drain morale in a newsroom that is already anxious about the changing nature of the media industry and scarred by the recent round of buyouts, which saw the departure or reassignment of many high-level editors. To add insult to injury, Abramson has been notably absent — or “AWOL,” as several staffers put it — at key periods when the Times required leadership.

“The Times is leaderless right now,” one staffer said. “Jill is very, very unpopular.”

I am hardly in a position to tell you whether this portrait of Abramson is fair. If it is, it shows an executive who does not know how to lead or to manage.  It suggests that Abramson is so insecure in her position that she feels that she can only maintain her authority by putting down everyone else.

If Politico is right, Abramson is going through the motions, pretending to be in charge, without knowing how to lead.

Staff members feel like passengers on a ship that is listing or even sinking. Under the circumstances they need a captain who is in control of his or her emotions. They want a steady hand at the wheel, not someone who is working through her difficulties assuming her position.

I do not know if the description is accurate, but I have not seen any reports suggesting that it misrepresents the Abramson temperament or attitude.

If the staff is demoralized and if no one wants to deal with a mercurial executive editor, the fault lies with Abramson.

On the other hand, it be the case that the Times, as a business has been floundering for reasons that have more to do with the leadership exercised by Chairman Arthur Sulzberger. If he hired the wrong executive editor, the responsibility lies with him.

No one is surprised to read that the feministocracy has rushed to defend Abramson. As is its wont, it has denounced Politico for sexism. For the record, Politico is anything but a right wing site.

Jessica Bennett at Jezebel asks a question she thinks is profound: if Jill had been named Joe would anyone be saying all of those nasty things about her. It’s what passes for thought among feminists.

Next thing you know, she will report Dylan Byers to the thought police.

It is worth noting Politico compared the Abramson leadership style to that of former Times Executive Editor, Howell Raines. It pointed out that Abramson was as bad a leader as Raines.

It seems superfluous to mention it, but the argument—if Jill were Joe—is empty. Since it’s a counterfactual, you cannot refute it with objective evidence. Besides, if Jill had been Joe she would not be Jill.

As long as men and women are different they will have different leadership styles. They will have different strengths and weaknesses. Some women leaders make their womanhood an advantage. Some act as though they were imitation men. What matters is how well the company runs. Nothing about a leader's personality should detract from the task at hand.

Bennett does not seem to understand that the issue is not what people are saying about Abramson, but how well she is doing her job.

Worse yet, we are talking about the New York Times. Unless you believe that Politico made it all up, more than a few Times staff members are so disappointed about Abramson that they bad mouthed her to another news organization.

Clearly, their behavior entailed risk. Do you honestly believe that they took the risk because they were sexists?

Are the people who work at the Times are Tea Party conservatives or even Republicans? Is the New York Times a bastion of patriarchal privilege? If the liberal progressives who work at the Times are as sexist as Bennett thinks they are, what does that tell us about the Times?

[Addendum: Reuters just reported on the Times' quarterly revenue:

New York Times Co reported a decline in quarterly revenue as the newspaper publisher continues to struggle with weak advertising sales.

The 11.2 percent drop in advertising revenue in the first quarter underscores the pressure that the New York Times faces to increase its subscription revenue, especially for its digital products.]