RUSH: A lot of people are really all excited about what happened to Jill Abramson yesterday. Jill Abramson, what was she, the managing editor of the New York Times, the first female executive editor of the New York Times, and she was fired. They tried to talk her into going along with the idea that she resigned. They asked her to show up at the meeting with the staff where they announced her replacement, the first African-American managing director, Dean Baquet, but she wouldn’t go along with it. She got canned.
You wouldn’t believe the Stack of Stuff just on Jill Abramson today. If she would have just read her own paper she might have been able to avoid this. There were stories about what women who want a raise should do, how they should go about it. Don’t do it yourself, you’ll come cross as pushy. Have a lawyer do it for you. Have a third party do it. The New York Times has had story after story of advice for women on how to get a raise. She didn’t do anything, according to the news, anyway, that her paper had published previously. Her previous editor that she replaced, Bill Keller, she claimed that she found out that he was making more and had a better pension, so she went and she demanded equal pay.
Is this not juicy? Here you’ve got the Regime last week or two weeks ago on income inequality and this pay gap between men and women and here’s the house organ, the gospel, the Bible of liberalism, the most powerful employee outside ownership of the New York Times claims that she is a victim of pay discrimination. So the Times management got in gear real fast. “No, no, no, no, no. She was not paid significantly less than Keller. Remember, Keller had been here a lot longer than she had been here, and that’s why Keller’s pension was bigger than hers was. Keller had been here a long, long time.” So they kind of swatted that away.
I must tell you, I first saw this, I was gathering news, even doing show prep on the flight up to New York to the Children’s Book Awards, and I saw a picture accompanying this story, and I thought it was Hillary. And I saw “New York Times Executive Editor Out,” and I thought that the picture was that they had hired Hillary for the gig. And then I said, “Oh, no, it’s Jill Abramson.” I apologize if that offends anybody. I’m just telling you, I thought the picture of Jill Abramson was Hillary when I first glanced at it and with a little bit more time I discovered it wasn’t Hillary, but I saw why I could think that.
Anyway, so it’s sort of schadenfreude, isn’t it? I mean, here are these people at the Times leading the charge on the bogus stories of inequality and pay inequity, men and women, and here is the executive editor of the Bible of the American left complaining that she was a victim of pay discrimination because she was a woman. You can’t write this stuff. Well, you can’t go work for Obama because he does the same thing. Obama pays women less than the New York Times does. (interruption) Well, she was working for Obama when she was at the Times. That’s the point. Everybody at the Times is working for Obama. That’s the point.
So, anyway, the Times is dumping on her. Now the story is that Little Pinch never liked her. Pinch Sulzberger, Arthur Sulzberger III, his dad was called Punch, so they call him Pinch. He doesn’t like it, by the way. I don’t know why Punch was the nickname for his dad, and I don’t know why Pinch, other than it’s not Punch, is his nickname. But the story’s out there that they never got along, that there were always fights and management disagreements, and they’re making it sound like the only reason she got the gig was that she was a woman and they were trying to be politically correct. They’re even putting versions of that out there. (interruption) Well, let me tell you something. That’s not why I remembered Jill Abramson. That’s all fine and dandy, and if you get some jollies out of this, which I admit I do, too, I mean, I wouldn’t be human.
But there’s something else I want to remind you of about Jill Abramson. She had a partner, a writing partner named Jane Mayer who is currently at the New Yorker or at New York Magazine, one of the two. I always getting them confused. (interruption) Yeah, that’s right. She [Abramson] complained that her predecessor, Bill Keller, was being paid more, and I think they bumped her up. They gave her pretty close to what Keller was making. They couldn’t do the pension thing ’cause he’d been there longer, he had more time in.
Abramson used to work at the Wall Street Journal, so did Jane Mayer. But let’s remember what they did. They coauthored a smear book about Clarence Thomas. It was called Strange Justice. They just set out to destroy Clarence Thomas in this book. They tried to portray him as this oversexed, sexually harassing, incompetent, Uncle Tom, illegitimate African-American kind of guy. It was just vicious what these two did in their book on Clarence Thomas.
And that’s who Jill Abramson is to me. Whether she was a bad manager, was bossy, underpaid, fine and dandy. To me those are just distractions. And I don’t know whether this is karma, you know, things coming back, whatever you call it, justice or what have you, but that book that they wrote was just hideous. And I’ve never, ever forgotten that.
RUSH: Somebody said Jill Abramson was getting treatment for her management problems. What, sensitivity training? They were having big problems. They fired her anyway, even though she was in treatment!