The one thing that IO truly cannot stand about American journalism is how seriously they all take themselves. They’ve all missed the truth that it’s all about having something to put in the white spaces in between the ads and nothing more complex than that.
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.
Reeling? Exalted? Come on folks, someone who had climbed the greasy pole in her craft (and it is a craft, not a profession) got fired, that’s all.
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.
“High office”? And how in hell can anyone who makes a living with words use something as appalling as “meaningful”?
The Times also on Wednesday night appeared to be heading head-first 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.
Jeez folks, get over yourselves. And wouldn’t the NYT be a much more enjoyable paper if there was rather less of this self-importance attached to it?