The next chapter at the NYT starts Sept. 6 when Jill Abramson takes the editorial helm

Can Jill Abramson fill Bill Keller's shoes? (Yes, that was meant to sound kinda snarky.) NYT caption: "Jill Abramson, left, a managing editor, will succeed Bill Keller, center, who will become a full-time writer. Dean Baquet, right, will become the managing editor for news."

New York Times names Abramson first woman editor

By Jennifer Saba
NEW YORK | Thu Jun 2, 2011 3:22pm EDT

(Reuters) - The New York Times named Jill Abramson as its first woman executive editor, putting her in control of one the world's most respected newspapers as the industry struggles to keep advertisers and readers.

Abramson, 57, will lead the Times newsroom in a new era for papers, when a generation of readers increasingly prefers to get news from online sources such as Twitter, Facebook and a host of websites.

Currently the paper's managing editor, Abramson will succeed Bill Keller, 62, who will become a writer for the New York Times Magazine and for the paper's Sunday opinion section.

Assistant Managing Editor and Washington Bureau Chief Dean Baquet will become managing editor.

Both appointments are effective September 6, the New York Times Co said on Thursday.

It was widely expected that Abramson and Baquet, 54, would rise through the ranks and that one of them would assume the highest editorial position at the paper.

In the spring of last year, Abramson left her position for five months to work on the paper's digital strategy. Three editors -- Baquet, foreign editor Susan Chira and business editor Larry Ingrassia -- took turns serving as managing edtor in her absence. . . .

by Ken

So Bill Keller is stepping down years short of the NYT's dreaded mandatory retirement age. (Hmm?) I'm not sure what to say about his tenure except that he wasn't Howell Raines, and in the wake of the Howell Raines mess, being Not Howell Raines qualified as, by itself, a virtue. Since so much of what happened in Keller's tenure involved attempts at financial restructuring which I suppose included him but over which he had, really, no authority, his record seems kind of blank -- coulda been worse, but coulda been a whole lot better.

As for Jill Abramson, well, all I know is what I read, and so far it doesn't tell me much. I suppose that having earned the enmity of Howell Raines now counts as a solid plus on her balance sheet, but what she has in mind for a paper still beset with all sorts f difficulties and still letting down badly on the journalistic job that, alas, only it can do. It may be unfair to expect one newspaper to singlehandedly counter the American embrace of right-wing unreality as a substitute for reality, the paper has gone-along, gotten-along on a whole lot too much for my taste.

As for the future, I'm guessing in the days to come people will be coming out of the woodwork with "inside" knowledge of the "real" Jill Abramson. We'll have to take it all with the usual grains of salt.

#