noted for two days, the key piece in how so many online observers in the media have portrayed the firing of Jill Abramson was Ken Auletta's early New Yorker blog post that suggested that a, if not the, key spark for her exit was that she was paid less than her predecessors and took action to reverse that. No matter that his original piece related that this was only one of several reasons for the blowout, and that Auletta spent yesterday clarifying that--it had already become the meme.
So the Times itself struck back with statements and memos claiming that not only was this no factor but that Abramson in fact was paid as well or better than her immediate predecessor, Bill Keller. Then Auletta returned last night with a longer piece, again claiming multiple reasons for the blowout, but also providing some actual numbers on her pay that raised a few eyebrows.
Now a Times spokeswoman has asked Auletta for a correction, not on his numbers on claims but on allegedly misquoting here on issue that could cause them legal trouble. He makes parenthetical mention of that just now in update story: "Her quote is accurate and in context, as I’ve confirmed in my notes." Stay tuned!