1. Since Abramson’s departure, the media world has been looking for a smoking gun to explain why Sulzberger moved so quickly to fire her. There may be one. But based on what we know now, it’s more likely that a combination of factors pushed Sulzberger to act on his longstanding frustration with Abramson’s management style. [Source]
2. “The unbelievable thing is that there actually is no ‘cause’ for this—no single thing, nothing,” a colleague said. “It was just a lot of accumulated backbiting.” [Source]
3. “Sherman writes of ‘the vortex of speculation and a search for a single smoking gun’ among Times Kremlinologists. But maybe it’s just this simple: Arthur—supposed champion of newsroom happiness—just got sick of Jill. And Arthur’s allies were sick of her too ... That’s a timeworn narrative that lacks both juicy intrigue and a hero. But sometimes the truest telling, the most accurate story, is the most boring and obvious one.” [Source]
Addendum (5/19/2014):
4. “Behind all this lurks a very simple explanation from Abramson’s ouster: the New York Times is a family-owned business and Abramson didn’t get along with the patriarch.” [Source]
