New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson, who has been described as "a source of widespread frustration and anxiety within the Times newsroom," has a peculiar policy when it comes to dealing with the press.
For example, Abramson recently rebuffed a Free Beacon reporter’s request for comment on whether she still plans to accept an honorary degree from Brandeis University following the school’s controversial decision to rescind its degree offer to women’s rights activist and Muslim apostate Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
Abramson told the Washington Free Beacon she could not comment on the Hirsi Ali controversy because the Times is covering the story. She did not respond to questions about whether she still plans to accept the degree or whether this could also present a conflict with the paper’s Hirsi Ali coverage.
Can’t comment on a story the New York Times is covering? That seems like a pretty restrictive policy for the editor of a newspaper purporting to cover "all the news that’s fit to print."
Except that Abramson doesn’t always abide by it. Just last week, she did a radio interview in which she openly discussed the Obama administration’s abysmal record of transparency and hostility toward the press. The Times is not only covering this long-running story; it is part of the story. One of its reporters, James Risen, has been issued a subpoena to compel his testimony in the trial of a former CIA official accused of leaking information.
Abramson was openly critical of the Obama administration, decrying its adversial relationship with the media, which she said has "put a chill on reporting about national security issues in Washington." The Obama White House, she argued, has set "a benchmark for a new level of secrecy and control."
It is disconcerting that Abramson would break her "rule" on discussing Times-covered issues in order to disparage President Obama, but not on an issue unrelated to the current administration. One wonders what it is about this president (and his attorney general) that Abramson finds so problematic.