From the story Anne Laurie posted, it sounds like the Times done fucked up:
Abramson’s attempt to raise the salary issue at a time when tempers were already frayed seemed wrongheaded to Sulzberger and Thompson, both on its merits and in terms of her approach. Bringing in a lawyer, in particular, seems to have struck them as especially combative. Eileen Murphy, a spokeswoman for the Times, argued that there was no real compensation gap, but conceded to me that “this incident was a contributing factor” to the firing of Abramson, because “it was part of a pattern.” (Update: Murphy wrote to me after this post went up to dispute this. Her quote is accurate and in context, as I’ve confirmed in my notes. However, she now e-mails: “I said to you that the issue of bringing a lawyer in was part of a pattern that caused frustration. I NEVER said that it was part of a pattern that led to her firing because that is just not true.”)
No surprise she tried to walk that back, as Josh Marshall notes, because you probably shouldn’t fire someone for getting a lawyer when they’re alleging employment discrimination, unless you want to guarantee a lawsuit. But Murphy was in a tough spot. She had to shit all over Abramson on Pinch’s orders, and if you want to portray Abramson as uppity, hiring the lawyer rather than accepting that she was underpaid for two decades is definitely something that people who value having a pecker at $100K/year would think is out of line.
Frankly, I don’t care who edits the Times, but it sure is fun to see that half-bright prince fuck up. I’m sure journalism will survive, but the Times may not. Since Abramson has settled, this is probably a moot point, other than the shellacking Pinch is going to get from his liberal readers.