Ousted Editor Jill Abramson Was Raking More Than $500 Thousand Annually

They're the wretched of the earth over there at NYT, or something.

From Ken Auletta, at the New Yorker, "In 2011, Abramson's salary went from $475k to $503k, then $525k after protest; Keller's, $559k":

It is always hard to say what causes a final break—a firing, a divorce—but, clearly, a last straw came a few weeks ago, when Abramson, who made little secret of her displeasure with Sulzberger, decided to hire a lawyer to complain that her salary was not equal to that of her predecessor, Bill Keller. She had also been told by reliable sources at the paper that, as managing editor, she had once earned less than her own deputy, John Geddes. 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.”

And there was a "non-disparagement agreement"?

Lifestyles of the rich and famous, sounds like to me. Sheesh:

Times ombudsman reveals that both sides have signed non-disparagement agreement, so don't expect a tell-all interview from Jill Abramson

— HowardKurtz (@HowardKurtz) May 15, 2014

Previously: "Well, I was wondering what got Jill Abramson fired..."