|
Why Jill Abramson Was Fired |
 |
|
Thursday, 15 May 2014 15:01 |
|
Auletta writes: "Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs."
The New York Times building. (photo: Raymond Boyd/Michael Ochs Archives)
Why Jill Abramson Was Fired
By Ken Auletta, The New Yorker
15 May 14
 t the annual City University Journalism School dinner, on Monday, Dean Baquet, the managing editor of the New York Times, was seated with Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., the paper’s publisher. At the time, I did not give a moment’s thought to why Jill Abramson, the paper’s executive editor, was not at their table. Then, at 2:36 P.M. on Wednesday, an announcement from the Times hit my e-mail, saying that Baquet would replace Abramson, less than three years after she was appointed the first woman in the top job. Baquet will be the first African-American to lead the Times.
Fellow-journalists and others scrambled to find out what had happened. Sulzberger had fired Abramson, and he did not try to hide that. In a speech to the newsroom on Wednesday afternoon, he said, “I chose to appoint a new leader of our newsroom because I believe that new leadership will improve some aspects …” Abramson chose not to attend the announcement, and not to pretend that she had volunteered to step down.
As with any such upheaval, there’s a history behind it. Several weeks ago, I’m told, Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs. “She confronted the top brass,” one close associate said, and this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was “pushy,” a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect. Sulzberger is known to believe that the Times, as a financially beleaguered newspaper, needed to retreat on some of its generous pay and pension benefits; Abramson, who spent much of her career at the Wall Street Journal, had been at the Times for far fewer years than Keller, which accounted for some of the pension disparity. Eileen Murphy, a spokeswoman for the Times, said that Jill Abramson’s total compensation as executive editor “was directly comparable to Bill Keller’s”—though it was not actually the same. I was also told by another friend of Abramson’s that the pay gap with Keller was only closed after she complained. But, to women at an institution that was once sued by its female employees for discriminatory practices, the question brings up ugly memories. Whether Abramson was right or wrong, both sides were left unhappy. A third associate told me, “She found out that a former deputy managing editor”—a man—“made more money than she did” while she was managing editor. “She had a lawyer make polite inquiries about the pay and pension disparities, which set them off.”
Sulzberger’s frustration with Abramson was growing. She had already clashed with the company’s C.E.O., Mark Thompson, over native advertising and the perceived intrusion of the business side into the newsroom. Publicly, Thompson and Abramson denied that there was any tension between them, as Sulzberger today declared that there was no church-state—that is, business-editorial—conflict at the Times. A politician who made such implausible claims might merit a front-page story in the Times. The two men and Abramson clearly did not get along.
A third issue surfaced, too: Abramson was pushing to hire a deputy managing editor to oversee the digital side of the Times. She believed that she had the support of Sulzberger and Thompson to recruit this deputy, and her supporters say that the plan was for the person in this position to report to Baquet. Baquet is a popular and respected figure in the newsroom, and he had appeared, for the most part, to get along with Abramson. (I was told, however, that, at a recent dinner with Sulzberger, Baquet said he found her hard to work with.) He is also someone whom Sulzberger passed over when he chose Abramson. But Baquet apparently felt that he hadn’t been consulted, and, according to two sources, expressed his concerns to Sulzberger. He had also reportedly been approached by Bloomberg about a job there. (Baquet has not yet responded to a request for comment; neither has Abramson.)
In a reflection of the fractious relationship that Baquet and others had with Abramson, the Times reported that Baquet, speaking to the newsroom after his appointment, “praised Ms. Abramson for teaching him ‘the value of great ambition’ and then added that John Carroll, whom he worked for at The Los Angeles Times, ‘told me that great editors can also be humane editors.’”
These issues seemed to congeal for Sulzberger and Thompson. The reason Sulzberger originally hesitated to appoint Abramson as executive editor was a worry about her sometimes brusque manner. As I wrote in my Profile of Abramson, others in the newsroom, including some women, had the same concern. But, although there are always complaints about the Times’ supposed “liberal” bias, or its preoccupation with certain stories, Abramson got high marks for the investigative stories that she championed. At a time when Bloomberg News pulled the plug on an investigation of corruption and the princelings in China, Abramson pushed the Times to do more, even after her reporters came under pressure in China. Even though she thought she was politely asking about the pay discrepancy and about the role of the business side, and that she had a green light from management to hire a deputy to Baquet, the decision to terminate her was made. Sulzberger met with her last Friday, and reportedly told her that it was time to make “a change.”
 |
|
Bernie Sanders Could Be the 2016 Democratic Candidate We've All Been Waiting For |
|
|
Thursday, 15 May 2014 14:59 |
|
Hayden writes: "Nothing is decided until it is officially decided, of course, and pressures from the Democratic establishment are building quickly against the independent Vermont senator."
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). (photo: Sanders.gov)
Bernie Sanders Could Be the 2016 Democratic Candidate We've All Been Waiting For
By Tom Hayden, The Nation
15 May 14
The Vermont senator has given progressives leverage and a platform, a potent combination.
 enator Bernie Sanders is inching closer to deciding to run for president as a Democrat in 2016.
When Sanders appeared in Northampton to celebrate the tenth anniversary of Progressive Democrats of America, and to honor the legacy of the group’s late co-founder and national director, Tim Carpenter, “Run, Bernie, Run” sentiment ran high. Carpenter’s last act was to collect 11,000 petitions urging Sanders to run as a Democrat. And nothing Sanders said discouraged the consensus.
Thus a memorial service became an organizational birth, just as Carpenter himself envisioned.
Nothing is decided until it is officially decided, of course, and pressures from the Democratic establishment are building quickly against the independent Vermont senator. Few if any Democratic elected officials are likely to endorse Sanders for fear of retribution from the formidable Hillary Clinton forces. Women’s groups, African-Americans, Latinos and Asians, Hollywood liberals and the organized labor are coalescing into a united front for Clinton too, and are sharply opposed to a potentially divisive primary fight with Sanders.
But just as 2016 will be Clinton’s moment as a longtime feminist, it could also be Sanders’ moment as the only candidate challenging what he calls the “oligarchic force” with their vast powers over the economy, campaign finance and suicidal exploitation of fossil fuels. Sanders’ warning that democracy is threatened by the oligarchs resonates profoundly with millions of Americans looking for answers and for heroes. On the economic issues, it is predictable that a majority of rank-and-file Democratic voters prefer Sanders’ message on the economic crisis to the neoliberal formulas long supported by the Clintons. Those populist issues are not the only motivators in an election, but create a pre-existing base for a credible challenger, just as the Iraq War and Democratic silence propelled Vermont Governor Howard Dean to national influence in 2004.
For the moment, Sanders is on a nationwide speaking-and-listening tour in which he delivers a long, detailed and educational stump lecture on the stranglehold of the oligarchy, adding a menu of general solutions: infrastructure spending, expansion of healthcare and education programs, repeal of the Citizens United and McCutcheon decisions, protecting civil liberties against a Big Brother surveillance state, and a rapid energy transition away from greenhouse gas emissions. Without detailing his foreign policy views, Sanders reminded the PDA audience of his opposition to the Patriot Act and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
The Clinton forces currently dismiss the Sanders’ challenge, relying on an early monopoly of endorsements and money to project an aura of inevitability. But her advisers have reason to worry if she has to face Sanders in twenty to thirty debates where he will have a populist advantage with the voters judging them. In the Clinton style, she may hug the center with an eye on the fall general election, which could cause a dampening of ardor among the Democratic base. Assuming she wins the nomination, a lingering “Bernie factor” in states like Ohio could tip the November balance. The Karl Rove Republicans basically depend on fissures among Democratic constituencies to eke out victories for their unpopular Republican candidates.
Sanders for his part has no interest in being seen as a spoiler who handed the election to the Republicans. He is registered as an independent (socialist) but caucuses with the Senate Democrats. If he runs as a Democrat, he will have to find a way to acknowledge Clinton as far better than any Republican candidate, while at the same time articulating a sharply different populist message. He could borrow Jackson’s ’80s strategic refrain that it “takes two wings to fly,” meaning that the Democrats are stronger if their progressive wing is strengthened against the Wall Street wing of the party. That increased progressive strength already is demonstrated in the electoral victories of Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts and Bill de Blasio in New York City. California’s Jerry Brown has shown that it is possible to balance a budget, raise taxes on the ultra-rich, spend more on education equity, support immigrant rights fight global warming and win big. (Brown has endorsed Clinton, but is capable of running himself if an opportunity should happen to arise).
One way for Clinton to marginalize Sanders or even push him out of the race would be to move closer to Sanders’ populist positions. Could the Clintons, who are famous (or infamous) for marginalizing the party’s left and realigning it with Big Money (NAFTA, deregulation, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers), actually swing back to the left in 2016? They may think that they don’t need to, because Clinton’s economic policies only need a bit of “refreshing,” and because a Hillary candidacy will turn into a referendum on women’s rights just as 2008 became a referendum on racism. They may be right if the Republicans cannot leash their mad-dog chauvinists. But if the nominee is Jeb Bush? The campaign then would seem to many Americans one over over dynastic succession, in which case the economic issues—and the “Bernie factor”—could become decisive.
The Clintons already are on the image-makeover path, showcasing their endorsement of de Blasio (a former Clinton lieutenant), supporting a minimum wage increase and offering a positive gloss on their time in the White House. Would that approach sell in a debate with Sanders, or would she be hammered for tokenism and flip-flopping? In the background, her support of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, drone and recent hawkish positions on Libya and Syria, lurk as sharks in the water she will have to navigate. Those issues can’t be dismissed like Benghazi, and they are issues which deeply matter to Democratic voters.
Clinton emissaries of course could negotiate behind-the-scenes, starting now, with Sanders for major platform planks on the economy, climate change and campaign finance reform, even suggesting the vice-presidency to someone like Ohio’s Sherrod Brown, Virginia’s Tim Kaine or even Senator Elizabeth Warren, all enticing offers to Sanders’ wing of the party. But that would require an unusual recognition by the Clintons that the Democrats really do have a progressive wing that only grows more frustrated and stronger as the economy stagnates, emissions rise, wars loom ahead and right-wing fundamentalism becomes more toxic. In turn, such a tacit agreement would require a humility from Sanders that might begin to fade as he puts on the body armor of a challenger. A progressive third force (consisting of mainstream Democrats, the progressive base, populist insurgents and even libertarians) could take root as the best governing coalition possible in America. Can Clinton and Sanders imagine instigating a force larger than themselves in 2016?
It’s a deep question. But without the growing whispers and rumors of a Sanders campaign, the question would not even be under consideration. The progressive agenda would recede as a possibility as maneuvering towards the center takes over the political stage. It is more likely that the issues will be sorted out the old-fashioned way, by the sweat and tears of one more fateful election. For now at least, Sanders has given progressives a leverage and a platform, a potent combination.
|
|
|
FOCUS | Condi Rice, Christine Lagarde: Cowardice at Commencement |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=20877"><span class="small">William Boardman, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 15 May 2014 11:49 |
|
Excerpt: "Students and faculty objected to Rice for her participation in lying her country into war in Iraq, and even more so for her defense of widespread American use of torture in the 'global war on terror.'"
Faced with objections to her role in war and torture, Condoleezza Rice chose not to speak at Rutgers’ commencement. (photo: PR Photos)
Condi Rice, Christine Lagarde: Cowardice at Commencement
By William Boardman, Reader Supported News
14 May 14
What would you expect from powerful people, personal courage?
 he American Condoleezza Rice, 60, Iraq War architect, and the French Christine Lagarde, 58, International Monetary Fund managing director, have little in common beyond being women of power who have contributed to the misery of millions of people they never cared to meet. And now they have another quality in common, cowardice under fire, albeit only verbal fire after they were invited to speak at college commencements.
Rutgers University invited Rice to speak (for $35,000 and an honorary degree) and Smith College invited Lagarde (compensation undisclosed).
Student and faculty objections to Rice started in February and continued to grow for months. The Rutgers administration held firm, Rice kept quiet. On April 28, some 50 students staged a sit-in at the Rutgers president’s office. The president refused to talk with them and they dispersed when Rutgers threatened to arrest them.
In a letter ironically foreshadowing his bald hypocrisy on free speech and academic freedom, Rutgers president Robert Barchi had written in March:
We cannot protect free speech or academic freedom by denying others the right to an opposing view, or by excluding those with whom we may disagree. Free speech and academic freedom cannot be determined by any group. They cannot insist on consensus or popularity.
Students and faculty objected to Rice for her participation in lying her country into war in Iraq, and even more so for her defense of widespread American use of torture in the “global war on terror.” An online petition by a 1991 Rutgers grad collected 694 signatures opposed to Rice, and campus petitions gathered hundreds more. In a lucid indictment of Rice’s apparent criminality, published in The Chronicle of Higher Education the day before Rice withdrew, Rutgers history professor Jackson Lears wrote:
Rice sanctioned the use of torture and has continued to defend it even after a top aide warned that she and her colleagues were violating the law. To invite her to address the Rutgers graduating class, and then to award her a doctor-of-laws degree, is a travesty of all the ideals the university embodies. Our students deserve better. Most of all, they deserve the truth.
Officially, Rutgers showed no interest in truth, history, morality, etc.
Rice did not engage issues like war or torture in her withdrawal statement, arguing instead that the crucial issue was the party-time nature of commencements. She said she was “honored to have served my country,” without mentioning any specifics. She did not explain why her controversial performance in office wasn’t as obvious to her in February as it became in May. Bowing out of the May 18 graduation as of May 3, Rice’s statement on her Facebook page read in part:
Commencement should be a time of joyous celebration for the graduates and their families. Rutgers’ invitation to me to speak has become a distraction for the university community at this very special time…. I understand and embrace the purpose of the commencement ceremony and I am simply unwilling to detract from it in any way.
Despite Rice’s belated withdrawal, Rutgers faculty and students went ahead with a planned, six-hour teach-in on May 6 because, as three participating professors wrote, “we concluded that the need remained for a scholarly exposition of Dr. Rice’s responsibility in the lies leading to the Iraq war and the implementation of the unprecedented torture policies under the Bush administration.”
In an exercise of actual academic freedom, Rice was invited to the teach-in when it was first planned, but she did not attend. President Barchi expressed the corporate position that Rutgers stood “fully behind” inviting Rice to the commencement (where only the speaker has freedom of speech). The teach-in (on YouTube) began shortly after that official statement, and the professors wrote:
It was an event that will be remembered because there has not been one like it for a very long time. The lecture room of the Student Activities Center was packed by a crowd of more than two hundred students and faculty members, many sitting on the floor, others standing anywhere they could, all listening with the utmost attention to the poignant speech of human rights attorney Jumana Musa, then to the illuminating exposés of our panelists, to whom Rutgers University – the real Rutgers – is forever indebted.
And we all stood up to applaud the six students who represented the ‘No to Rice’ movement that organized the demonstrations of the last ten days: the enthusiastic commitment they expressed to humanistic values was a reminder that there is real hunger among our students for more knowledge of history, of foreign cultures, of the very notion of ‘culture,’ of political science, of economics, as well as a deep interest in questions related to ethics, public policy and the place of media in our culture. Students like these give a special meaning – and responsibility – to our teaching and research.
Rutgers was against students learning about unapproved reality
No free speech was harmed in the unfolding of these events, except at the Rutgers president’s office (where student speech was met with threats of arrest). By cutting and running, Condoleezza may have lost a paid venue (her net worth is about $4 million), but she has hardly been muzzled; on the contrary, her exercise of her own free speech got us into a deceitful, destructive failure of a war for which millions of Iraqis continue to pay with their own freedom and lives. The Rutgers administration lost students’ respect for promoting an apparent war criminal, but there’s no sign the administration is sensitive to any of that.
Academic freedom is a big winner at Rutgers, where faculty let some air and light into the discussion of 15 years of American crimes against humanity that are usually left to fester down the memory hole. And perhaps the biggest winners are Rutgers students, whose determined integrity allowed their voices to be heard on an issue of principle that the Rutgers administration got wrong on both substance and morality.
Like Rutgers, Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts, announced its choice of commencement speaker in February and protest began soon after, but the two protests are very different responses to two very important elephants in our collective cultural-political living room. Where Rice is emblematic of the elephant of illegal war, torture, war crimes, and crimes against humanity about which we are not supposed to speak, Lagarde represents the much tidier elephant of financial plunder and economic “austerity” that probably leaves millions more innocent people to suffer and die without hope.
It’s not that Christine Lagarde sold people an illegal war as Rice did, but as head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) since 2011, she carries out a prior ordained policy that is as inhumane as it is merciless. In Ukraine now, some people are hoping that $17.1 billion from the IMF will somehow help to save a country that can hardly pay for gas these days. But that $17.1 billion is not a gift, it is a loan to a country that can’t support its current debt load, and so, thanks to the IMF, Ukraine can look forward to another decade or more of even worse debt servitude than it has suffered in the past. The IMF’s $17.1 billion is typically reported as a good deed, but there are 46 million Ukrainians (except for a small number of oligarchs and bankers) who will have no reason to be grateful for this “beneficence.” The IMF has just bought the right to be the unelected ruler of Ukraine, and the purchase is so sweet, the Ukrainians will have to pay for it – with interest.
Objections to Lagarde are institutional and philosophical
Christine Lagarde is a well-regarded attorney whose specialties were antitrust and labor issues. She has held several French government posts, including Minister of Finance. She was the first female chairman of the international law firm Baker & McKenzie. She is an undeniably accomplished woman about whom the worst, easily available personal criticism is her apparent callousness toward the Greeks in 2012. Any real skeletons she may have remain tucked away in her closet.
Opposition to Lagarde at Smith was not personal, as an online petition made clear:
By selecting Ms. Lagarde as the commencement speaker we are supporting the International Monetary Fund and thus going directly against Smith’s values to stand in unity with equality for all women, regardless of race, ethnicity or class. Although we do not wish to disregard all of Ms. Lagarde’s accomplishments as a strong female leader in the world, we also do not want to be represented by someone whose work directly contributes to many of the systems that we are taught to fight against. By having her speak at our commencement, we would be publicly supporting and acknowledging her, and thus the IMF.
Even if we give Ms. Lagarde the benefit of the doubt, and recognize that she is just a good person working in a corrupt system, we should not by any means promote or encourage the values and ideals that the IMF fosters. The IMF has been a primary culprit in the failed developmental policies implanted in some of the world’s poorest countries. This has led directly to the strengthening of imperialist and patriarchal systems that oppress and abuse women worldwide.
Smith’s trustees haven’t said why they wanted to honor the IMF
Not surprisingly, Smith’s administration stood by its invitation to Lagarde, and there is little evidence of campus ferment even at the low level on the Rutgers campus. There was one report of a quiet campus sit-in by 40 students earlier in May. But apparently Lagarde is thin-skinned as well as guarded in her public persona. According to Smith president Kathleen McCarthy in a May 12 letter to the college community, Lagarde withdrew “in the wake of anti-IMF protests from faculty and students, including a few who wrote directly to her,” which might seem pretty thin-skinned for someone with a net worth of $4 million (and annual, untaxed income of about $630,000) whom Forbes ranked as the 7th most powerful woman (35th most powerful person) in the world.
According to McCarthy, Lagarde retreated with the same lame excuse Rice used, not wanting to be a party-pooper. As quoted by McCarthy, Lagarde wrote: In the last few days, it has become evident that a number of students and faculty members would not welcome me as a commencement speaker. I respect their views, and I understand the vital importance of academic freedom. However, to preserve the celebratory spirit of commencement day, I believe it is best to withdraw my participation.
Back in February, Lagarde observed that income inequality was increasing globally, citing the United States and India in particular. Delivering a lecture in London, she said, "In India, the net worth of the billionaire community increased twelve-fold in 15 years, enough to eliminate absolute poverty in this country twice over…. [Inequality] leads to an economy of exclusion, and a wasteland of discarded potential.” She did not suggest doing anything particular about this kind of global impoverishment for the vast majority of people on the planet.
Reaction to Lagarde’s reneging on a commitment is reportedly mixed on the Smith campus. Unlike at Rutgers, there is no teach-in or other communal effort to explore the issues raised by IMF activities. The argument, as in President McCarthy’s letter, is limited to supporting or opposing the choice of a speaker, and is not about the vast damage the IMF does in the name of economic stability. And it’s also not about the startling cowardice of a powerful woman who can’t find the wee bit of courage it might take to face a bunch of 20-something, well-mannered Smith College women who might disagree with her or even, God forbid, say something rude to a global administrator of cruel and unusual policies. What is it with these people who lack the fortitude to speak to an audience not in total awe of their magnificent selves?
As Katherine Sumner, Smith ’14, wrote: “It was in a Smith classroom that I first learned about the problems that the IMF has wrought on the Global South, and how those problems have affected women's lives for the worse. As a graduating senior, I would be disappointed, to say the least, if a representative of that institution were honored and endorsed by a community that I am a part of.”
Needless to say, that is not the perspective with which this story is covered in mainstream media, where actual issues of substance and the events are presented with a tone of supercilious trivialization, as in the Washington Post story that began: “The commencement speaker purity bug has hit Smith College.” [Emphasis added.]
Rice and Lagarde were not subjected to “commencement speaker purity” or any other form of censorship. They were faced with coherent intellectual challenges to the core value of some of their most significant activities, and they did not rise to that challenge. And they bailed. They exercised self-censorship, deploying a spurious excuse rather than even attempting to engage in a serious debate. They did not act boldly and address the legitimate concerns of students and faculty with honesty and respect. That would have been too close to actual academic freedom. Instead these women of power fled the field rather than face an audience that might show disappointment. They retreated when the game wasn’t rigged in their favor; they folded when the institution failed to guarantee them commencement audience purity.
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
|
Top 5 Signs That It Is Rove Who Is Brain Dead, Not Hillary |
|
|
Thursday, 15 May 2014 09:42 |
|
Cole writes: "Karl Rove was reported to have raised questions about Hillary Clinton's mental well-being because of her fall in late 2012. He later walked back his allegation, but not too much."
Karl Rove's comments about Hillary Clinton have drawn criticism. (photo: AP)
|
|
arl Rove was reported to have raised questions about Hillary 
