Jill Abramson forced out as New York Times executive editor … Jill Abramson said: 'I've loved my run at the Times.' … The most august newspaper in the US, the New York Times, was left reeling on Wednesday after its executive editor, Jill Abramson, was fired and replaced by her deputy less than three years into one of the most exalted jobs in journalism. In a move that caught even the most senior staff at the paper unawares, Arthur Sulzberger Jr, the publisher and chairman of the New York Times Company, announced that Abramson would be replaced immediately by Dean Baquet, the paper's managing editor. He is the first African American to hold the job, although that milestone is likely to be overshadowed by the sudden dismissal of the paper's first female top editor in its 162-year history. – The Guardian
Dominant Social Theme: Liberal facilities lead the way to female equality …
Free-Market Analysis: Once upon a time, it was thought that female writers and editors might bring special qualities to newsrooms that male-dominated enterprises lacked. Additionally, it was thought that liberal-oriented (leveling) publications with a stake in creating "equality" might be the most effective way of helping women advance.
But the last few months have not been kind to either of these assumptions. A three-fer of top female editors have decided to leave their places of employment; and reading between the lines, it is evident that the resignations were likely mutual occurrences, though they are not publicly being portrayed that way.
Who are they? Well … The New York Times has lost its female editor, Jill Abramson, who resigned abruptly. At nearly the same time, the head of LeMonde, Natalie Nougayrède, decided to part company with France's leading newspaper after "personal and direct attacks." Tina Brown, not long ago, decided to leave The Daily Beast and a foundering Newsweek.
If these had been "conservative" mainstream publications, or even more damning, large alterative media publications, there would likely have been an uproar and surely much breast-beating in the mainstream about how women editors are still subject to discrimination.
But these departures have taken place at the rarified heights of some of the most powerful and liberal media enterprises in the world. And thus, articles tying the three leave-takings together and then drawing further conclusions have been not-so-surprisingly lacking. Of course, one of the departures just took place, but nonetheless, there already has been time to create the kind of "omnibus" article that the mainstream media is adept at concocting. We would be surprised if such occurs …
The leave-takings took place from three publications that are embattled, leaking readers and credibility as a result of Internet competition, especially from the alternative media. And even though these publications were (and are) seen as credible ornaments of the media, at least two of the three, (The New York Times and Newsweek) were involved in what has become known as Operation Mockingbird. This was a CIA sponsored gambit to ensure that top media properties embraced Cold War tensions, among others things, and reported on them in ways that justified further domestic authoritarianism as a result.
There are plenty of questions about the Cold War (along with virtually every other narrative presented by the 20th century's directed history). But you will find little or no reporting in the mainstream press about Operation Mockingbird, especially about suspicions that it continues. We've written about it here:
Surveillance State? Washington Post Explains It … Not
And here's more about the Abramson removal:
When she took the job in September 2011, Abramson, 60, said it was "meaningful" that a woman had been appointed to run newsroom of such an influential organisation, and her removal is now certain to be perceived as an example of the "glass cliff" facing women in high journalistic office.
In a brief statement released by the New York Times, Abramson pointedly commented that under her watch "our masthead became half female for the first time and so many great women hold important newsroom positions".
Abramson's exit was unexpected and almost brutally abrupt. She left without addressing the newsroom, was taken off the paper's masthead within a few minutes of staff being informed of the change, and reports suggested she will no longer work for the newspaper.
As news dripped out about the lead up to Abramson's firing, it appeared that the paper was heading into a potentially damaging furor over unequal pay of senior women on its staff. Both Ken Auletta of the New Yorker and NPR's media correspondent David Folkenflik reported that a few weeks ago Abramson had confronted the "top brass" after she discovered that she was paid much less than her predecessor, Bill Keller.
According to Auletta, "this may have fed into the management's narrative that she was "pushy," a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect." As news of the apparent rift over unequal pay quickly began to spread on social media, Vox's editor-in-chief, Ezra Klein, tweeted: "Can you imagine an editor of the New York Times not being 'pushy'? Why on earth would you want that?"
The sense that Sulzberger now faces a potential gender backlash was heightened by a report in Capital New York that said that two senior Times journalists had spoken out at the newsroom meeting in which Abramson's sacking was announced. They said that the dismissal would be taken negatively by many female staff members, the website said.
… Abramson has long had a reputation for abrasiveness in her dealings with colleagues. She also earned herself enemies by leveraging the departure of about 30 editors and writers including well-respected senior journalists such as Jonathan Landman now at Bloomberg View, and Jim Roberts now at Mashable.
We can see gender issues creeping in, yet because of the parties involved, the narrative is subdued. The mainstream media in aggregate still seeks such narratives, however. In Afghanistan, Iraq and other embattled countries, Western media presents military struggles as inevitably including an element of gender empowerment. Yet the use of depleted uranium by Western forces has poisoned vast tracts of land and made it impossible for many women to have children without significant risk of birth defects.
In Western countries, and especially in the US, the advent of women in numerous professions that hitherto had been closed off was supposed to provide benefits both personally and professionally. In fact, the most significant difference was supposed to be in politics where additional female participation was to "gentle" male-led diplomacy and reduce the number of military confrontations.
Female politicians like Hillary Clinton have seemingly proven just as prone to violence as their male counterparts. Ms. Clinton's famous quip regarding Muammar Gaddafi – "we came, we saw … he died," is certainly evidence of a pragmatic and even celebratory stance regarding state-sanctioned violence.
Additionally, women executive editors like Abramson have not proven any more apt to reveal the truth about the Western Intel control of major media corporations than their male counterparts. In fact, editors like Tina Brown have proven to be enthusiastic gatekeepers of business-as-usual. See Tina Brown Unravels.
The leave-taking of three powerful women in the media should not trigger one of the most ubiquitous-of-all elite dominant social themes because these departures do not conform to the confrontational narratives that globalists seek as part of their "divide and conquer" strategies.
But doubtless when the time is right and the circumstances are more opportune, the meme, dishonest as it is, will quickly reappear.