Former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson continued her postmortem analysis of what went wrong at the newspaper during another interview, this time with Katie Couric at Yahoo News.
Abramson, who was abruptly fired from the Times in May amid grumblings about her "management style," told Couric that during her tenure she was more interested in the quality of the newspaper than in making sure everyone in the newsroom liked her. "As managing editor for eight years and as executive editor for three years, I put out a terrific news report," she said. "And led the kind of journalism that I believe in. I am hard-charging, I was certainly aware that some people had already described me as tough. I have high standards...I think a lot of people who worked for me found that inspirational, some people didn't like it. That is how it is at every news organization that makes a difference.'"
"I can scarcely think of an executive editor of the times that wasn't described in the same way," she added.
But was her firing about gender? "I think that women are scrutinized and criticized in a somewhat different way and that certain qualities that are seen in men as being the qualities of a leader or ambition as seen as a good thing are somehow not seen in as attractive a light when a woman is involved," she said. "And I'm hardly the first person to observe that."
But when Couric attempted to drill down into the gendered aspects of her firing, Abramson said her record at the Times was more important than the details of why she lost her job. "I don't see gender as being the whole explanation by any means... but it's somewhat irksome to me to see so much focus on the issue of why was I fired. First of all, let's be honest, how many people in the real world really care about why Jill Abramson lost her job?"
"I think the amount of attention that's focused on my last days as opposed to the 11 years that I [ran the New York Times] everyday is just out of proportion," she added.