NY Times’ Jill Abramson Attacks Obama: Most Secretive White House I've Ever Covered

NY Times' Jill Abramson Attacks Obama: Most Secretive White House I've Ever Covered

The paper's executive editor lit into President Obama's policies towards the press in an interview with Al Jazeera America

During a sit-down interview with Al Jazeera America's John Seigenthaler, New York Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson didn't mince words about her harsh feelings for President Obama, calling his administration the “most secretive White House” that she'd ever covered throughout her journalistic career.

Also read: NYT Editor Jill Abramson Blasts Sexist Politico Piece Again

“I would say it is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering, and that includes — I spent 22 years of my career in Washington and covered presidents from President Reagan on up through now, and I was Washington bureau chief of the Times during George W. Bush's first term,” Abramson sniped.

Also read: New York Times Editor Jill Abramson Defends Controversial Piece on Rival Paper

“I dealt directly with the Bush White House when they had concerns that stories we were about to run put the national security under threat. But, you know, they were not pursuing criminal leak investigations,” Abramson added. “The Obama administration has had seven criminal leak investigations. That is more than twice the number of any previous administration in our history. It's on a scale never seen before. This is the most secretive White House that, at least as a journalist, I have ever dealt with.”

Also read: New York Times Editor Jill Abramson Profile Leads to Unflattering Photos of Jill Abramson

Abramson may still be harboring ill will towards the president for unceremoniously bumping her as Barnard University's commencement speaker in March 2012. Abramson had been announced ahead of time to be the featured commencement speaker but the White House called the college and offered up Obama instead which the college promptly accepted, displacing Abramson.

Also read: Politico Takedown of NYT's Jill Abramson: Same Old Sexism? Or a Real B—-?

Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren criticized the president at the time for not being considerate of the New York Times doyenne. “Of course Abramson can't criticize this  – so I will for her and for other women. This is positively rude.  I think less of Barnard for “trading up” and of the President for ‘big footing.;  He could easily find another college to speak at (I bet he has dozens of open invitations) and Barnard?  Well…I would be embarrassed to be part of Barnard.”

  • jamesbondone

    Excuse me! The American public did not elect the New York Times to run the country and if members of the administration leak sensitive information they should be investigated and prosecuted. Duh! Is this woman crazy?

  • Simone

    Sounds like sour grapes Jill. I just stopped my subscription to NY TIMES. got it for 52 years. Will not miss it knowing such a petty person is in charge and stupid enough to share it. Has it ever occurred to you that the reason for a higher level of secrecy is due to the huge amount of haters wanting to block and destroy Obama? I don't blame his administration limiting people like you. I blame people like you for making his job that much harder! Shame on you.

  • Gratefulso

    There you all go so much for president obamas transparent White House. Didn't Obama say he was going to be the most open and transparent administration. Just another one of his lies, another day another lie. You can keep your insurance PERIOD! Yea right

  • hupto

    “Criminal leak investigations?” From the New York Times? AH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!

  • jeff

    she will be fired in no time, NO ONE criticizes his highness

  • Tom

    Criminal leak investigations? What crap. If its out its out, case closed. All of the leaks I've heard about have to do with embarrassing the government by exposing criminality. None of the leaks I've heard of endanger American lives…in fact many of them will help Americans if exposure of government criminality (Guantanoma tortures, drones, spying) help to improve and maintain our democracy. We need legistlation protecting whistleblowers and leakers. Unless its really major like exposing nuclear codes, it should be an honor system at most. Making these kinds of leaks criminal is itself criminal because it is really politically motivated rather than motivation based upon a real threat to our security. It is a very dangerous slippery slope to totalitarianism.