Mr. Continetti has a fantastic column up today noting that the New York Times newsroom is run by folks with the maturity level of the characters on Saved by the Bell. You should read the whole thing. I just want to briefly follow up on my own post from yesterday on the New York Times' appalling hypocrisy when it comes to the gender wage gap.
Following revelations that the Times may have fired their first female executive editor because she asked for pay equality, the newspaper reacted in a manner most spastic. (Gawker has a pretty good rundown of the various stories they told about how much Jill Abramson was paid compared to her male predecessor.) The Times repeatedly contradicted the reporting of the New Yorker's Ken Auletta, saying that Abramson and Bill Keller earned a "comparable" level of compensation.
Auletta last night revealed some specific numbers. And my, are they damning:
As executive editor, Abramson’s starting salary in 2011 was $475,000, compared to Keller’s salary that year, $559,000. Her salary was raised to $503,000, and—only after she protested—was raised again to $525,000. She learned that her salary as managing editor, $398,000, was less than that of the male managing editor for news operations, John Geddes. She also learned that her salary as Washington bureau chief, from 2000 to 2003, was a hundred thousand dollars less than that of her successor in that position, Phil Taubman.
Let's just compare the two concrete salaries we've been given: If Abramson was making $475,000 and Keller was making $559,000, that means that the Times was paying Abramson slightly less than 85 cents for every dollar they paid a male employee doing the same job. If this were, say, a Republican presidential administration, the Times would be OUTRAGED. Remember how they pushed and pushed for wage equality? Here's the Times editorial board:
Women still make, on average, 78 cents for every dollar earned by men performing substantially the same work. To foster greater fairness, stronger civil rights protections are required.
As many, many people have noted, that "78 cents on the dollar" statistic is totally bogus. It doesn't take into account things like "experience" or "job sector" or "education level." It's a huge steaming pile of happy horseshit. But the New York Times repeats it ALL THE TIME. They do this because they are ideologically blinkered frauds happy to perpetuate a lie because it aids their narrative. So excuse me if I dismiss their cries that Keller was paid more because he had more experience at the newspaper.
The simple fact of the matter is that the New York Times pays its women 85 cents for every dollar they pay their men. I'm shocked, shocked to see such a travesty take place. Do better, Sulzbergers! Provide an example for the rest of us to follow!
Or, failing that, kindly STFU.