Drawing fire from some feminist groups, New York Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. tried to tamp down reports that ousted executive editor Jill Abramson was paid less than her male predecessor.
Sulzberger said in a memo to staff Thursday that it was “simply not true” and that he wanted to “set the record straight” about Abramson’s pay.
“It is simply not true that Jill’s compensation was significantly less than her predecessors,” he wrote. “Her pay is comparable to that of earlier executive editors.
“In fact in 2013, her last full year in the role, her total compensation package was more than 10% higher than that of her predecessor, Bill Keller in his last full year as executive editor, which was 2010,” he wrote. “It is also higher than his compensation in any previous year.”
Abramson, 60, became the first woman to lead the paper after taking over from Bill Keller in September 2011. Her sudden dismissal immediately gave rise to reports that she was paid less than Keller and had complained directly to Sulzberger about the disparity.
Sulzberger was concerned enough to send out a memo to the paper, whose masthead is half female, and the wider company.
“Compensation played no part in my decision that Jill could not remain as executive editor…The reason—the only reason—for that decision was concerns I had about some aspects of Jill’s management of our newsroom, which I previously made clear to her, both face to face and in my annual assessment,” he wrote.
One online petition from feminist group UltraViolet read: “One thing the New York Times can do right away is commit to pay transparency — one of the most effective ways to combat and prevent pay discrimination. With pay transparency, women have the tools they need to win fair pay, and right now the New York Times can turn its outdated, sexist policy around and become an leader in the fight for pay equity.”