Brad Barket / Getty Images
In a story published Thursday evening, Auletta reported Abramson actually made as much as $84,000 less than Bill Keller, the man who had her job before her.
"As executive editor, Abramson's starting salary in 2011 was $475,000, compared to Keller's salary that year, $559,000. Her salary was raised to $503,000, and-only after she protested-was raised again to $525,000," Auletta wrote.
Auletta was first to report a pay disparity may have been a factor in Abramson's abrupt firing from the paper, which was announced Wednesday. According to Auletta, Abramson's departure was preceded by her confronting Times management after discovering the wage gap. Since then, in a series of statements including an email from publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the Times has steadfastly maintained Abramson was never paid less than Bill Keller, the man who had her job before her.
On Wednesday, Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy told Business Insider Abramson never made "meaningfully less" than Keller. Murphy also gave Auletta a potential explanation for the apparent discrepancy between his figures and the Times' statements about Abramson's salary.
Auletta indicated he had a conversation with Murphy about the numbers and she "cautioned that one shouldn't look at salary but, rather, at total compensation, which includes, she said, any bonuses, stock grants, and other long-term incentives." Murphy also told Business Insider in an email Thursday that Abramson's "total compensation was higher as executive editor in 2013 than Bill Keller's total compensation was in any previous year."
Business Insider emailed Murphy Friday morning to ask whether she disputed Auletta's numbers. As of this writing, we have not received a response.