It's still not officially clear why Jill Abramson got abruptly booted as executive editor of the New York Times, but theories certainly abound:
- Abramson knew her days were numbered, sources tell Gabriel Sherman at Daily Intelligencer, but everyone was "shocked" at how quickly the end came, says one high-level editor. Everyone is speculating about what was behind the move—but "the unbelievable thing is that there actually is no ‘cause’ for this—no single thing, nothing," says one colleague. "It was just a lot of accumulated backbiting." She and Arthur Sulzberger Jr. didn't get along even before she became executive editor, sources say, and things only got worse after. Particularly problematic: Abramson's contentious relationship with new CEO Mark Thompson as well as the deputy who would eventually replace her, Dean Baquet.
- At the New Yorker, Ken Auletta thinks pay disparity was the big reason—Abramson recently learned her pay and pension benefits were less than those of Bill Keller, whom she replaced as both managing editor and, later, executive editor. "She confronted the top brass," and they didn't react well, says a source.
- But the Times itself denies that; a spokesperson tells Politico, "Jill's total compensation as executive editor was not less than Bill Keller's, so that is just incorrect."
- David Carr and Ravi Somaiya covered the story for the Times, and they also cite "serious tension" between Abramson and Sulzberger and "clashes" with Baquet, particularly over hiring decisions. But don't expect any official word from either Abramson or the Times; the article reports that a settlement prevents both sides from talking.
- A running theme through many articles on the matter is that Abramson was disliked for being "pushy." Ruchika Tulshyan addresses that in Forbes, noting, "That word—loaded and undeniably gendered—speaks to the deeper issues women face when they demand anything."
- At the New Republic, Rebecca Traister notes that it's possible Abramson was fired for performance issues—there have been rumblings that she was—but even so, the way it played out was "harsh and humiliating," and it "made me hope that eventually we will learn that she was stealing from the company cash register," Traister writes. "Because that’s pretty much the only crime I can think of that would merit as swift and brutal an exit."