If You Want “Equal Pay” at the New York Times You Need to Find Another Job

More than once this blog has addressed the fallacy of “equal pay.” See here and here. The basic fallacy is that women as a group are identical in skills and interests to men as a group. They are not. They pursue different kinds of careers with different pay scales.

There are other issues as well.

Liberals have been known to mostly push past all the evidence and insist as a matter of justice that woman be paid more. Recently, in fact, the Public Editor of the New York Times, Margaret Sullivan, wrote under the headline, “Still Talking About It: Where Are the Women.”

Some facts, according to a recent Women’s Media Center study:

* At the nation’s 10 most widely circulated newspapers, men had 63 percent of the bylines, nearly two for every one for a woman. (The study looked at bylines only in the first section of the papers.)

* Among those papers, The Times had the biggest gender gap – with 69 percent of bylines going to men.

* Women are far more likely to cover health and lifestyle news. They’re less likely to cover crime, justice and world politics.

* At three major papers, including The Times, and four newspaper syndicates, male opinion-page writers outnumber female writers four to one.

After three decades in journalism, I find it hard to believe that – while things have changed radically in some ways – there’s still such a gender imbalance. 

Well, I guess Sullivan will find it harder to believe that the New York Times has just imbalanced it some more. They replaced the first ever female Executive Editor Jill Abramson with Dean Baquet.

Why?

Other than complaints that amounted to calling her bossy, the real blow came when she demanded equal pay for equal work. From the New Yorker:

Several weeks ago, I’m told, Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs. “She confronted the top brass,” one close associate said, and this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was “pushy,” a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect. 

These arrogant scum don’t even consider how they look to us, the hoi polloi they preach about and demand to be legislated and regulated. The New York Times has promoted every kind of insane economic, so-called “justice.” Yet they not only don’t practice what they preach but publicly flout their own professed values.

This tells you something about how they expect the laws they recommend to be enforced in practice.

I’m praying for the day that the New York Times’ real value is recognized by the marketplace.