Van Susteren’s interview was direct and wide-ranging where Couric’s was timid and roundabout
After her spectacular high-profile ousting as executive editor of the Times in May, Jill Abramson broke her post-NYT silence this week with a series of media appearances. First it was announced that she’d be opening up first to Katie Couric on Thursday; then Greta Van Susteren swooped in and scooped Couric with a Wednesday interview. Abramson struck an appropriately unrepentant pose as she made the rounds, telling young women not to “feel stigmatized” after losing a job.
“I was fired,” she told Greta Van Susteren flatly. “I’ve devoted my whole career to truth-telling, so why hide that?” The appearance on Fox News’ “On the Record” was sandwiched between an interview in Cosmopolitan and another online with Katie Couric for Yahoo News. In her interviews with both Van Susteren and Couric, she was on a clear mission to work the popular gendered media angle. Each successive appearance revealed a sharp and knowledgeable Abramson who pulled no punches. But with Van Susteren, she probably revealed more about our media environment—and the state of women in media—than anyone expected.
The Van Susteren interview, as awkwardly posed as it was to, ah, attack President Obama, was more pointed than Couric’s. (The Obama dig might make more sense in light of the strongly worded support for Hillary in 2016 in Abramson’s Cosmo interview.) With Van Susteren she seemed to be engaged in semi-debate with a savvy, politically engaged peer. Couric’s questions were hesitant and clumsy—particularly when reading from a screen about whether or not there was a gender bias in media, which is a question she should probably be familiar enough with to not have to read from a screen. Some responses seemed to test Couric’s smiley, straight-faced composure. For example, on the subject of her conversations with higher-ups about compensation, Couric asked for clarification, the walls came up. “I’m not gonna talk about my pay,” Abramson said and paused before adding, “On your show.”
If there were a person in the universe most capable of effectively criticizing the Times right now, it might be its ousted executive editor. But Abramson is not one to question whether the Times’ armor has chinks. She still claims to view the Times as unassailable. (And professes to reading it, cover to cover, every day. Also, has a “T” tattoo. ) To Couric, Abramson even expressed a desire to make sure the public remains focused on “the issue” and not her firing: The issue being: is the Times still putting out quality content?
Read More – Greta Van Susteren’s puts Katie Couric to shame