
Facebook Co-Founder Chris Hughes Is Buying 'The New Republic' - zt
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/03/09/148247430/facebook-co-founder-chris-hughes-is-buying-the-new-republic
======
spamizbad
I wonder if this means TNR will move away from neoconservative foreign policy.
Historically, TNR has supported the United State's involvement in various
Middle East conflicts and routinely advocates for war with Iran.

------
deyan
I am a bit surprised by the negative comments in this thread. I have had the
opportunity to work with Chris and he is incredibly humble and smart.
Obviously he is taking a big risk with this venture but if nothing else the
way he conducts himself makes me want to cheer for him and wish him best of
luck in this new venture.

~~~
shingen
I don't think the issue is with Chris at all. It's with what he's buying and
trying to do.

There's a track record in publishing, where new money has an itch they want to
scratch in old media. The last decade, this has happened in magazines and
newspapers a few prominent times. Someone gets rich, they decide they want to
be a publisher, and they follow their heart in regards to high quality
journalism, and spout all sorts of great sounding bytes on how important x y z
is.

The new money rarely realizes just how hard it is to stay afloat in the world
of magazines and newspapers.

Then reality hits, and the crushing difficulty of running a magazine becomes
apparent. Unfortunately, what's most likely to happen is Chris will take at
least a moderate financial loss on the purchase. And he may very well not
mind, that's understood.

~~~
rokhayakebe
If you know all this, do you really doubt someone like C.H. didn't think of
it?

------
jonnathanson
To me, this seems really smart. I may be wrong, and I may be nuts. But there
definitely seems to be a dearth of in-depth analysis in the world of
journalism and media. Everything is short-form, sound-bite, of-the-moment,
disposable information these days -- the sort of thing Twitter really nails,
but for which traditional journalism is not well suited.

There's probably a place for both forms of information in our world. (And it'd
be nice to see the long-form media not trying to bastardize themselves to
compete with short-form; that's always seemed like a losing game to me). And,
frankly, a bimodal world containing short-form, timely content on one end, and
long-form, thoughtful analysis on the other, would be a nice change of pace
from the muddy middle of clickbait, content farms, quasi-spam, and endless
recombinations thereof.

Now, say what you will about the _New Republic_ as the particular choice. I
think that's a lot more debatable. But the business idea is intriguing.

~~~
simantel
I feel like magazines trying to be what you describe is not a new idea.
Perhaps best adapted to the web is The Atlantic, but I also read The American
and Miller-McCune, and think they'd fall under your description as well. I'm
sure there are countless others, too. What's going to set apart The New
Republic?

~~~
jonnathanson
_Are_ they failing, though? Seems to me like they're doing just fine.[1] And
that's an anomaly in the magazine industry.

My hypothesis is that the magazines that are failing are the ones who fall
into the muddy middle-ground between short-form and long-form. They can't
compete with the internet on timeliness, and they can't compete with long-form
magazines and journals on substance.

It's also interesting to note that the magazine articles most frequently
linked on social media, or even here, seem to come from long-form mags. Of
course, monetizing that quality is a challenge in its own right, and
presumably you'd need a plan to achieve it before buying a magazine.

[1]I may be wrong here, and if so, I'm happy to stand corrected.

~~~
jonnathanson
EDIT: Sorry, I realize I misread the word "fall" in your post and saw "fail."

------
emehrkay
This was a good interview this morning. I was in the car thinking that I
needed to look up who this guy is and how he had money at 28 to buy a long-
standing magazine. During the interview he cited how browsers(websites) are a
big distraction in obtaining and fully consuming the ideas behind a piece of
news -- I get no value from what my friends post on facebook.

------
shingen
New money learns how to lose money in an old way.

~~~
jpadkins
I think people who lose money in media are actually getting what they want:
manufactured consent.

------
ktizo
Was somewhat amused by this paragraph;

'He sees The New Republic as a place "of liberal values. And by that I mean
values that embrace the core American ideals of freedom, equality and an
American responsibility to make the world a better place."'

There are strong echoes of Citizen Kane. I wonder how long his 'Declaration of
Principles' will last.

------
zotz
I dislike Facebook and the New Republic for the same reasons: they're both run
by apparent sociopaths and each claims a mantle of semi-divinity. I know that
Hughes isn't involved in the day to day at FB, but he influenced it into being
the swamp that it is now.

If he had a sense of decency, he'd at least get rid of Peretz.

~~~
gyardley
Peretz seems to be gradually removing himself as he winds down his career, but
this is a strange statement to make - I suspect it was only his leadership
that made the magazine's editorial slant distinctive from other publications
and therefore worth paying attention to. Without him, you might as well roll
TNR into Mother Jones or The Nation and call it a day.

~~~
zotz
I have to question the judgement of anyone that would give credence to a man
that said:

"But, frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims. And among those
Muslims led by the Imam Rauf there is hardly one who has raised a fuss about
the routine and random bloodshed that defines their brotherhood. So, yes, I
wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of
the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that
they will abuse."

~~~
gyardley
I have to question the judgement of anyone that thinks you can pick some
random quote from somewhere and then use it to discount an individual's entire
body of work spanning decades.

Peretz is a secular Zionist and passionate advocate for Israel's right to
defend itself who at the same time strongly opposes Israeli settlements in
Judea and Samaria.

This combination of views is increasingly rare and that's a real shame,
because without prominent people advocating them, defending Israel and
defending the settlers are going to reflexively come together as a package.

~~~
zotz
It's not "some random quote". It's part of a larger pattern of extreme racism
that Peretz has exhibited over the years.

One can defend Israel without resorting to barbarism. Peretz appears to have a
difficult time doing so.

My overall point is if Mr. Hughes wants to engender good vibes about his new
purchase, perhaps he should get rid of its biggest bad vibe generator.

~~~
gyardley
You might be right - perhaps I've just missed this. I won't claim to have read
every single thing Peretz has written.

But are you sure the 'bad vibes' around Peretz are due solely to his racism? I
figured he'd run TNR into the ground, and I knew he was disliked, but I
figured it was solely because the audience for left-wing domestic policy +
right-wing foreign policy has been steadily evaporating. I suspected most of
his audience had picked a 'side' and jumped for The Nation or something like
Commentary, depending on their preferences.

In any case, I have to admit I don't see TNR's reason for being post-Peretz.
It'll be interesting to see what Hughes does with it.

~~~
zotz
> But are you sure the 'bad vibes' around Peretz are due solely to his racism?

I'm unsure. But it certainly can't help. Peretz was condemned by Harvard's
undergrads back in 2010.

