[def_illiterate]

>“If Kleiner wanted to look classy, it could have said, ‘This was hard fought and we obviously disagree with your view, but it’s in the interest of all parties to walk away. In the meantime, there have been lessons learned and we are going to fund organizations that focus on glass ceiling issues,’ ” Ms. Katz said.

Just donate to my rainbow coalition...

[alexqgb]

What they actually said was "Promise not to pursue this case any further or pay us $1 million."

[def_illiterate]

Yep! And I quoted the article's quote from a critic.

I felt it was worth pointing out one of the most patently ridiculous things I've ever heard, and the fact that it was given play really tells you how the NYT leans.

[alexqgb]

It's a mistake to think of the NYT as a monolithic entity that deliberately leans one way or another. I've got a few friends who work there, and they all report that "the" Times is actually about five distinct fiefdoms engaged in a constant battle with one another. It's a real shark tank, politically speaking, and not the kind of place with the sort of absolutist, top-down structure (like, say, Bloomberg) that's conducive to straight party lines.

That said, it was a bullshit link-bait headline buy hey, traffic, right?

[pyre]

> "Promise not to pursue this case any further or we will try to collect $1 million from you"

Fixed that for you. There is no guarantee that they will recover all or part of those costs if they decide to pursue it.