A New York Times spokeswoman demanded on Friday morning that the New Yorker magazine correct a report about the newspaper’s firing of executive editor Jill Abramson.
The magazine, however, responded by saying its original report was accurate.
The article in question was written by New Yorker media writer Ken Auletta, and it laid out the salary discrepancies between Abramson and her male colleagues at the Times dating back to 2000.
In the article, Auletta quoted NYT spokeswoman Eileen Murphy, who reportedly said Abramson’s decision to bring in a lawyer to address the salary concerns was “a contributing factor” in her firing. Murphy reportedly said there was no real compensation gap, but conceded the hiring of a lawyer was part of a larger pattern of behavior that struck management as combative.
Politico reported Friday that Murphy believed she was misquoted in the New Yorker piece and had demanded a correction.
Murphy said in an email to Politico she conceded Abramson’s decision to hire a lawyer was seen as hostile by Times management — not that she was conceding the incident factored into Abramson’s ouster.
Auletta updated his piece Friday morning to note that Murphy disputed that quote after the piece was published. He stood by the quote as being accurate and in context, to which he wrote Murphy emailed this response: “I said to you that the issue of bringing a lawyer in was part of a pattern that caused frustration. I NEVER said that it was part of a pattern that led to her firing because that is just not true.”
The dead horse was officially beaten 24 hours after the firing. Now, in the third day of the aftermath, this nag has been pummeled, pommeled and pulverized beyond any purpose.
The distinction the Times is now making is effectively meaningless; are they really claiming that “frustration” of this kind with an employee has no role in their attitude toward her continuing employment? If there’s an aftermath about compensation differences and it’s general between genders, then that will be a story to follow. The Times has a long history of woman hating.
OTOH, it appears from news reports that Abramson wasn’t much when it came to leading and collaborating with people, which was a centerpiece of her duties. True or just a result of her standing up over the pay issues? If true, it raises the question of why she was chosen in the first place.
While the distinction Murphy is trying to make is without a difference logically, it may well have a difference legally. I believe that the NYT is desperately trying to limit the damage from the upcoming wrongful termination lawsuit.
Even if the distinction is legally important, in substance the Times would have a hard time defending itself if challenged legally and it went to trial.
Editorialist M. Dowd is purported to be a BFF of Ms. A. It will be interesting to see if Dowd has any guts to comment in her acerbic Mean-Girl way on this issue or whether she covets her paycheck more than loyalty to her friend’s public sexist humiliation. (I think I know what she’ll do because bullies only attack those who won’t fight back.)