Photo Credit: Commonwealth Club
Jill Abramsoh, The New York Times first woman executive edtior

Jill Abramson, appointed less than two years ago as the first woman executive editor of The New York Times as well being a Jew, apparently has become too uppity for others, no less than the Times’ managing editor Dean Baquet, who stormed out of a meeting with her earlier this month.

Abramson had summoned Baquet to her office to scold him for what she considering less than  exciting news coverage, according to the Washington-based Politico website.

Advertisement

Baquet not only burst out of the office in anger, he also did not show up for the daily 4 p.m. editor’s meeting.

Baquet later told Politico he felt “bad” out the temper tantrum, but the website added that Abramson “has become a source of widespread frustration and anxiety within the Times’ newsroom.” Some staffers called her stubborn and difficult to work with.

Baquet insisted after the altercation that he has a good relationship with Abramson, and the whole incident may simply be a tempest in the teapot that could be relegated to the gossip sheets.

Abramson’s presence at the newspaper has not made it any more Jewish and certainly not any more pro-Israel, if not more anti-Israel. Abramson once said that when she grew up in her Jewish home, the Times was the family’s’ “religion.” “If the Times said it, it was the absolute truth,” she said.

That was before the days of Thomas Friedman, and Judi Rudoren.

For the record, the Times covered Abramson’s wedding in its “Style” section in 1981, when she married a man with the very non-Jewish name of Henry Little Griggs III, who was an NBC producer at the time.

It is doubtful that the Times will print a blurb on the spat with Baquet, and on the surface it has little news  value.

However, the tension may represent something much deeper and beyond the realm of a personality clash at the Times.

Under Abramson, the newspaper has won four Pulitzer prizes in this month alone, but the bottom line – money – is not as green as it used to be.

Its  revenues sank in every quarter the past year, reflecting the dismal state of most newspapers in the day of Internet and Smartphones.

Analysts expect that its earnings for the first quarter of this year will be only 5 cents a share, slightly more than half of what it earned for the same period in 2012.

Advertisement

4 COMMENTS

  1. I also grew up with the nytimes "religion". considering that its readership was substantially Jewish and New York, how could the nytimes not lose money when they took on such an egregious anti-semitic anti-israel bent. I would not renew even for their 99c offer. it isn't worth 99c.

  2. I'm sure the decline in the NY Times' revenues has nothing to do with the growth of the Internet, nor with the lousy economy. On the other hand, it has lots to do with that Jill Abramson married a guy named "Griggs" rather than one named "Goldberg," at least according to Tzvi, who takes his usual cheap shot.

    Hey Tzvi, I married out. Got a problem with that, boychik?

  3. I'm sure the decline in the NY Times' revenues has nothing to do with the growth of the Internet, nor with the lousy economy. On the other hand, it has lots to do with that Jill Abramson married a guy named "Griggs" rather than one named "Goldberg," at least according to Tzvi, who takes his usual cheap shot.

    Hey Tzvi, I married out. Got a problem with that, boychik?

Loading Facebook Comments ...