I've been a daily reader of the print NYTimes and later of nytimes.com, but I haven't been either for years since they erected the paywall. I see a lot fewer links in to the site since then as well. The Iraq war coverage was also a blow.
It's rather laughable that this is the criticism some people have of the NYT considering its championing of "free trade", deregulation, etc, its keeping important stories off the news for month to years (state eavesdropping on Americans being the latest one), and its inability to find a military intervention it doesn't like. Don't get me wrong, equal pay is an important issue but in Abramson's case, it pales in comparison to the misreporting the NYT has kept doing under Abramson's management (hundreds of stories on Benghazi versus virtually none of TPP).
I'm wondering how much their focus on growth at the expense of all else has to do with somehow managing to pay for that ridiculous building they moved to just when print media was starting to go into a tailspin.
@2: It's amazing that the NYT thinks the dropping traffic to their website is due to some internal issues with their journalism and not the simple fact that they don't have an open access website.
Serious question: Should anyone who walks into a job automatically get the same salary as the person who was doing it before, regardless of experience, time in the job, etc.?
It doesn't seem out of line that Keller (after 8 years as executive editor and almost 30 years with the paper) would have been receiving a higher salary than someone in her first couple of years in the job and who had a decade less seniority at the Times.
I've been a daily reader of the print NYTimes and later of nytimes.com, but I haven't been either for years since they erected the paywall. I see a lot fewer links in to the site since then as well. The Iraq war coverage was also a blow.
Locally we should try to support the gender wage gap issue. Seattle can lead the way in this issue like it does in so many others.
Printing the smears of Dylan Farrow was just a hint of the misinformation stream that got flushed into their feed.
It doesn't seem out of line that Keller (after 8 years as executive editor and almost 30 years with the paper) would have been receiving a higher salary than someone in her first couple of years in the job and who had a decade less seniority at the Times.
Is anyone else curious now about how much each of them is paid?
How does that explain why the guy who *replaced* her as Washington bureau chief made more money than she did?
No. Who gives a shit?