The New York Times found itself reeling from allegations of sexism and the fallout from a bungled media relations strategy on Thursday after the abrupt dismissal of its executive editor.

A day after failing to give a detailed explanation for his decision to fire Jill Abramson, the paper’s first female editor in its 163-year history, publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr issued a statement in which he denied that it had been prompted by a row over her pay.

“It is simply not true that Jill’s compensation was significantly less than her predecesor,” he said in a note to staff on Thursday.

Sulzberger had stunned the newsroom on Wednesday when he announced Abramson’s unceremonious departure at a hastily-assembled gathering of staff, at which he said Abramson would be replaced immediately by her deputy, Dean Baquet.

But Sulzberger failed to give a convincing explanation for Abramson's dismissal, referring only vaguely to issues of management in the newsroom. That led to competing theories in a welter of media reports.

Abramson, 60, had been in the job less than three years, an unusually short tenure. She was widely seen as a strong leader and ally for reporters, especially to other women on staff. But she was also said to have caused friction with an occasionally abrasive manner. Reports had emerged of clashes between Abramson and not only other editors, but the paper’s top two executives: Sulzberger and CEO Mark Thompson, who had been brought in from the BBC.

Ken Auletta of the New Yorker reported that Abramson had complained to superiors about being paid less than her male predecessors. In his email to staff on Thursday, Sulzberger said Abramson’s “total compensation package” in the last year of her tenure was 10% more than that of Bill Keller, her predecessor, in his final year, three years before.



“Compensation played no part whatsoever in my decision,” he wrote. “Nor did any discussion about compensation. The reason – the only reason – for that decision was concern I had about some aspects of Jill’s management of our newsroom.”

Abramson’s exit was unexpected and brutally abrupt. She left without addressing the newsroom, was taken off the Times masthead within a few minutes of staff being informed of the change, and it was made clear that she would no longer work for the newspaper.



Abramson was prevented from commenting by a non-disclosure agreement. On Thursday her daughter posted a photo on Instagram captioned "Mom's badass new hobby." In the picture, Abramson, wearing a ball cap and boxing gloves, poses with a punching bag.



A feeling of injustice about Abramson’s dismissal was reportedly sharpened by a meeting of senior executives, shortly before the all-staff meeting, at which her firing was announced. National editor Alison Mitchell suggested it would be unsettling for women in the newsroom who saw her as a role model, Capital New York reported. To that, Sulzberger reportedly responded that women executives could be fired as could men.

Arianna Huffington, the founder of the Huffington Post and a leading voice in digital journalism, leapt to Abramson’s defence on Thursday. “Jill is not only a great journalist, but she brought to her tenure at the Times a passion for quality journalism and an understanding of the need for the Times to evolve,” Huffington told the Guardian.

Sulzberger gave only a bare-bones explanation for his decision to fire Abramson at Wednesday's staff meeting, saying that it was an effort to improve newsroom management. More detailed theories soon filled the vacuum. One held that Baquet, the managing editor, was angry that Abramson had moved to hire Janine Gibson, the editor-in-chief of Guardian US, to act as a joint managing editor of the Times alongside Baquet.

Gibson has confirmed that she was approached by the New York Times for the job, which she declined. The New York Times did not reply to a request for comment about how Abramson’s dismissal was handled.

Abramson has long had a reputation for abrasiveness in her dealings with colleagues. But she also had strong supporters, and could point to a stream of journalistic successes, including eight Pulitzer awards in her three years in office.

One colleague with whom Abramson had notable friction was Thompson. Thompson was reportedly angered by Abramson’s insistence, before he had officially come on board at the Times, on investigating what, if anything, he knew, as head of the BBC, about the suppression of a report on the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. An independent report later found evidence of "chaos and confusion" and a failure of leadership at the BBC under Thompson – but no egregious ethical lapse.