

Inside the Collapse of the New Republic - GabrielF00
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/inside-collapse-new-republic
I think I&#x27;m exactly the audience that TNR wants. I&#x27;m well-educated, make a good living, largely agree with them politically, enjoy long-form journalism, and am familiar with the brand and its history. Yet I don&#x27;t think I would ever subscribe to TNR. I just see a magazine as something that&#x27;s going to pile up in my house. I can read more than enough great content online for free. If I was going to subscribe to a magazine, I think that The New Yorker is a lot more interesting than The New Republic. If I was going to subscribe to two magazines, I might pick the Atlantic or another competitor over TNR.<p>The media has largely portrayed this as Hughes carelessly destroying a renowned and vital institution. Hughes has certainly made some mistakes, but I wonder whether Foer and Wiesetlier were just letting the magazine gradually slide into irrelevance and inevitable death anyway. This is a magazine whose readership has dropped by half since 2000.<p>If Hughes doesn&#x27;t want to subsidize a money-losing institution with a declining and aging readership, then isn&#x27;t it his prerogative as an owner to shake things up? He may have gone about it the wrong way, but ultimately wouldn&#x27;t the public be better off with a TNR that has an ability to support itself and thrive in the future?
======
escape_goat
There is something deeply tragicomic about Vidra's role in this. I know
nothing about the man, and it would be too easy to disparage him on this basis
of this report; one should presume that he has management and organizational
skills well suited to an executive position, and one should not forget that he
seems to have been completely hamstrung by the owner's ill-fated activism and
engagement with the magazine, whatever his own faults might be.

That said, two items strike me. The first is that he comes across as
stunningly _tone deaf_ in this circumstance; unless I am reading pure calumny,
it seems that he did not consider what a corrosive effect a jargon-heavy, non-
committal communication style would have when dealing with people who were
deeply, professionally engaged with the _meaning_ of words. Nor does he seem
to have understood that he was in a situation where he was starting with zero
social credibility and would need to establish social credibility in order to
do his job.

The second is that this was a situation in which he was facing the least
fungible workers imaginable. All TNR had, besides the cheques for the current
subscriptions, was the culture and society that had built up around it: most
specifically that this particular small social network, consisting of these
people, had as its central focus, source of wider status, and _raison d 'etre_
the writing down of words in exchange for money under the masthead of this
particular little magazine. There are no factories, nor even inventories.
There are no repositories of source code. There are no patents or significant
intellectual property rights. The people he alienated were completely integral
to the product he was undertaking to make profitable.

~~~
bhouston
The TNR was never profitable though and likely could never be given its
current structure.

But I wonder why buy and gut TNR if you could have just started a separate
endeavor. TNR isn't that strong of a name - it is just a name is relatively
small circles of elitists.

~~~
waterlesscloud
Let's be blunt about it- Buying TNR was an attempt to buy status with the old
school intellectual liberal elite. Which is completely valid as far as it
goes.

The unimaginably bad mistake is to then screw around with it in a way that
makes it no longer what he was trying to buy.

~~~
dangerboysteve
I think you hit the nail on the head with this. And it echoed the same
approach he and his husband took for their political foray.

------
mynameishere
_The magazine has almost always lost money_

Magazines like The New Republic are effectively public-facing think tanks, and
were never meant to be enterprises. Print journalism as a whole is going in
that direction. Billionaires like Carlos Slim and Jeff Bezos will prop up the
big papers, and multi-millionaires like Chris Hughes will prop up the little
papers.

Hughes (bizarrely) confused himself with a businessman, and confused TNR with
a business. No. It's always been a political mouthpiece. You're _supposed_ to
lose money.

~~~
rpenm
You're not going to have much political influence ("travel") if you don't have
readership.

TNR has been floundering for an ideological voice since the end of the Cold
War, and took quite a few hits to its credibility under Peretz. Readership was
down for a reason.

A sympathetic view would be that Hughes wanted to go for a technical solution
- invest in TNR's digital presence - rather than completely purge the staff as
Peretz did in the 1970s. Too bad the effect was the same.

~~~
aridiculous
When you had a Supreme Court justice (Ginsburg) in your readership, you had
political influence.

------
danso
> _Hughes insisted that deep reporting and ideas would still be important to
> the magazine. “That’s not enough,” he added. “We also have to do videos. We
> also have to do interactive graphics. We also have to be increasingly
> smarter—we’ve already made good progress, but even more—about how we use
> social media.” The session finished abruptly with Hughes banging on the
> table and declaring, “This institution has been around for one hundred
> fucking years,” and promising that it wasn’t dead._

Ugh...as someone who worked as a developer in the news industry...I don't
believe that fancy interactive graphics and video have a chance to save a
text-based company. What is necessary for journalism companies to survive is
not only good content, but _good process_...and if you have a staff accustomed
to producing text pieces, you will not have the pipeline necessary to do the
"cool" web stuff...And even if you did, those things would not save you, even
when done competently.

Case in point: The New York Times produces visuals and interactives at a level
that is the state-of-the-art; not just in the journalism industry, but in any
industry. But there hasn't been much evidence that their groundbreaking work
has made a significant impact in declining revenues.

As evidence, I point out that NYT's current strategy is to bet much more
heavily on video, massively increasing its video production (and presumably,
video-ad-producing) department. However, according to this Columbia University
survey ([http://videonow.towcenter.org/](http://videonow.towcenter.org/)), not
a single newspaper organization has yet made a profit off of video, and video
has been part of news websites for almost a decade.

This is not to dismiss the talent at the Times...it's very possible, for
example, that their web interactive group can produce dividends...but that
will be because of a focus on developer process and digital strategy...not
simply because they produced a few highly popular features.

That said, I'm not suggesting that if New Republic stuck to what they do now,
that they'd make a profit. But as they say, jumping from the frying pan into
the fryer is not really a survival strategy.

~~~
kyllo
Just an anecdote, but I literally never watch video news online. I can consume
information from text many times as fast, so watching a video just feels like
slow motion. I doubt I'm alone in this.

~~~
qq66
I think the major reason for John Oliver's success is his ability to produce
videos that are long enough to capture some of the insight of long-form text,
with enough gags to meet today's attention spans.

~~~
rjbwork
Exactly. I LOVE his weekly (well, when he's on...) 15 or so minute
examination/attack of an important political or social issue. I may not always
agree, but I find I come away with a better understanding of an issue and a
few good laughs.

------
moonka
To me the most interesting parts were the ones where stories were buried on
Hughes direction:

>Several months earlier, Noam Scheiber, a senior editor at the magazine, had
started to report a story about Andreessen Horowitz, a major Silicon Valley
venture-capital firm. It was slated to be a feature in T.N.R.’s hundredth-
anniversary issue. But Hughes told Foer that he was scheduled to meet with
Andreessen Horowitz about investing in another venture. Scheiber was
reassigned to work on a profile of Valerie Jarrett. (Hughes denies that he
gave orders to delay or cancel the Andreessen story.)

>“Chris seemed pretty pissed about Leon’s ‘Colbert’ appearance,” a staffer who
is still at the magazine told me. “Editorial people were talking about how
great Leon was, and Chris was angry that the first thing Leon said was what’s
wrong with American culture is ‘too much digital.’ ”

>Hughes responded to the note six minutes later: “I think those are valid
issues, although Apple has acted squarely within the law,” he wrote.

~~~
calinet6
Most interesting and most telling.

It seems that Hughes was acting decidedly immature and selfish, and that led
to many consequences in such a delicate culture. He had no idea how to lead
it, or he just clashed with it too much—and he broke it.

It is a story about the importance of understanding and respecting internal
culture, above all. It can be incredibly powerful if directed in a positive
direction, but absolutely destructive if it's shaken. A lesson for all of us.

------
paulsutter
The article is a reminder that groups of people make decisions like primates,
even the most intellectual people. The criticisms are purely subjective
(slashes mine):

\- "To some staffers, /it felt as if/ Hughes had sent Vidra to scare them into
writing more, buzzier Web items"

\- "Vidra made his first appearance...It was /just terrifying rhetoric/ about
change without any substance to back it up."

However the author couldn't come up with any specific examples where Hughes or
Vidra are unreasonable people:

\- Hughes removed "Attack of the Crybabies:" from an article title "Why Hedge
Fund Honchos Turned Against Obama” (Hughes was going for /less/ "buzzy").

\- Foer wanted to make Amazon’s suspension of advertising public, but Hughes
insisted that he not. (Again, Hughes is the one avoiding "buzziness")

\- Hughes asks questions like, "Has anyone, including this article, said what
they did was illegal?" (a reasonable question about objectivity)

\- “The only compliment [Hughes] or [Vidra] ever said about a piece was that
it ‘did well,’ or it ‘travelled well,’ ”

Just about the only useful takeaway from this article is: don't try to manage
a politically sensitive situation by video conference.

~~~
afro88
I'm not sure if the question is if they're unreasonable people. I think it's
more where they want to take the publication:

“vertically integrated digital-media company”

and

“We also have to do videos. We also have to do interactive graphics. We also
have to be increasingly smarter ... about how we use social media.”

That's completely at odds with what the publication was, and with the reasons
long term staffers worked for it. If I was working for a digital media company
and it suddenly wanted to be a print only magazine, I'd look for work at
another digital media company.

Or, if I'm a die hard low level C++ coder with a deep understanding of the
language working at the same company for 20 years, and now suddenly that
company wants me to write html templates and javascript glue code for web
framework x.

> Just about the only useful takeaway from this article is: don't try to
> manage a politically sensitive situation by video conference.

More like don't expect your staff to stick around if you shift your company
into something that they hold disdain for, have not much experience in and
have no desire to have experience in.

A bunch of people leaving at once looks similar to groupthink, but in this
case I think it's only correlation, not causation.

------
wmeredith
This is a fascinating look at someone royally fucking something up. Great
read. Although, I'm not sure it was an unavoidable tragedy. The magazine has
always lost money and to survive it must have rich patrons. It ran out of them
and the only one left wanted to make it something it wasn't. If this hadn't
happened it would have a slow death of starved cash flow. I'm not sure if
that's better or worse.

------
GabrielF00
I think I'm exactly the audience that TNR wants. I'm well-educated, make a
good living, largely agree with them politically, enjoy long-form journalism,
and am familiar with the brand and its history. Yet I don't think I would ever
subscribe to TNR. I just see a magazine as something that's going to pile up
in my house. I can read more than enough great content online for free. If I
was going to subscribe to a magazine, I think that The New Yorker is a lot
more interesting than The New Republic. If I was going to subscribe to two
magazines, I might pick the Atlantic or another competitor over TNR. The media
has largely portrayed this as Hughes carelessly destroying a renowned and
vital institution. Hughes has certainly made some mistakes, but I wonder
whether Foer and Wiesetlier were just letting the magazine gradually slide
into irrelevance and inevitable death anyway. This is a magazine whose
readership has dropped by half since 2000.

If Hughes doesn't want to subsidize a money-losing institution with a
declining and aging readership, then isn't it his prerogative as an owner to
shake things up? He may have gone about it the wrong way, but ultimately
wouldn't the public be better off with a TNR that has an ability to support
itself and thrive in the future?

~~~
rst
No one's doubting his prerogative to shake things up (not even, by this
report, the editors he forced out, who had no problem with the concept of
digital initiatives per se). But the main reasons to buy an old magazine,
instead of starting a new one, are to gain access to its staff and brand
equity, and the results so far are that he flushed those assets down the
toilet. It's completely fair to judge him on results.

~~~
GabrielF00
I don't think that Foer and Wiesetlier "had no problem with the concept of
digital initiatives per se". I think TNR had a view of the Internet's effect
on culture as something to be defended against. For instance, TNR put out an
article in October arguing that readers on the Internet shouldn't post their
own book reviews: "I can see the value—maybe—for man-on-the-street reviews of
cold cream and pots and pans, but books?!"[1] There are many quotes in the New
Yorker article of TNR editors and writers sneering at "new media".

If the goal was to give the magazine some relevancy beyond its shrinking,
aging, audience, I don't think that Foer and Wiesetlier were the right people
for the job.

[[http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119875/margo-howard-
amazo...](http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119875/margo-howard-amazon-vine-
reviewers-sabotaged-my-book)]

------
justin66
This struck me as odd management technique:

 _Hughes tried to contain the damage. As rumors of a second wave of departures
circulated, Hughes and Snyder offered several members of the remaining
editorial staff one- to two-thousand-dollar bonuses, and in an op-ed for the
Washington Post Hughes tried to explain his vision for the magazine._

There are people to whom a two thousand dollar bonus would mean a lot and
there are people considering quitting a professional job as a as a matter of
principle or out of pique.

Only $2000?

~~~
bsder
> Only $2000?

Yeah, that was my reaction. I was kind of assuming a standard spat between
head honchos until that.

Anyone that tone deaf is the primary problem. If someone is quitting, you're
going to have to put major cash to reverse the decision. That kind of
insulting response just causes even more people to eject.

------
georgeoliver
As someone not in the business of tech or journalism I'm left to wonder why
Hughes didn't anticipate the editorial staff's reaction to Foer's firing.

Going out on a limb, is it possible that tech workers are more likely to go
along with the whims of management, and journalists have more stake in their
institutions? Or is it that due to the nature of their cultures tech workers
have an intrinsic adaptability and journalists are stuck with inflexible
traditions?

~~~
mturmon
It seems to me that Hughes has surrounded himself with sycophants. This would
also explain why he was so upset when his husband's political campaign ran
into trouble. He was not used to the criticism. Hence his dismissive attitude
toward the writing staff.

My hometown paper, the LA Times, also became a money losing proposition, and
was sold by the impatient heirs of the founding family to Sam Zell, a Chicago
billionaire who was also used to getting his way.

It went about the same way. The two low points that come to mind are Zell
saying it was OK for employees to watch porn at work "because it is un-
American not to like pussy," and calling a reporter a "motherfucker" to their
face, from a podium, while addressing the staff.

Zell is coarser, and is on the right politically, but the essence of the story
is the same. Asserting editorial control, thoughtless "disruption," buzzwords,
resistance from the old guard of reporters, revolving door of editors, bad
news via conference call, resignations.

Because of the way the deal was structured, Zell laughed all the way to the
bank. I don't see that happening with Hughes and TNR.

~~~
refulgentis
The comment about it being okay to watch porn at work rang untrue to me, and I
found a primary source that indicates a much milder story, that still itself
was a myth:
[http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2008/02/words_of_chairman_...](http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2008/02/words_of_chairman_sam.php)

~~~
mturmon
Sam Zell visited the LA times newsroom, where he made the comments I quoted
regarding "pussy."

Then, he went to the LA Times printing plant and made the comments I mentioned
regarding watching porn:
[http://www.bulldogreporter.com/dailydog/article/turmoil-
la-t...](http://www.bulldogreporter.com/dailydog/article/turmoil-la-times-
zell-makes-point-shocking-staffers-unorthodox-speech-speaks-harshl) So I feel
that my facts are not significantly different than the truth.

Also, reviewing the sources, he told the reporter -- a reporter from his own
paper -- "fuck you" from the podium, rather than "motherfucker." That one was
caught on video. There's much, much more on Zell; don't rule anything out by
the ordinary sanity checks.

I find him a fascinating character. Utterly repellent, of course. He
illustrates the emptiness of the rebel posture, when isolated from any sense
of ethics or dignity. Did I mention that he's had The Eagles, and Fleetwood
Mac, play at his birthday parties? It's that rock and roll rebel spirit ;-).

------
pixelmonkey
My reaction to all this on my blog, "The New Republic as a product":
[http://www.pixelmonkey.org/2014/12/13/the-new-republic-
as-a-...](http://www.pixelmonkey.org/2014/12/13/the-new-republic-as-a-product)

The resigning editors wrote: "It is a sad irony that [...] liberalism’s
central journal should be scuttled with flagrant and frivolous abandon. The
promise of American life has been dealt a lamentable blow."

Is it a doubt of anyone here that, in the web era, "liberalism's central
journal" won't be a journal and won't be central? To remain relevant, TNR
needs a growing and loyal digital audience. Because sooner or later, there
won’t be any other kind for journalism and opinion.

------
choppaface
The story reads like a great example of how a war-time leader will obliterate
a team if he fails to integrate. Despite all the initial good karma between
Hughes, Foer, and other editors, Hughes and the team clashed badly whenever
Hughes' personal network risked damage due to TNR issues (e.g. the leak about
Amazon pulling ads). The article seems to set SV culture at odds with TNR, but
I think there's a much more basic explanation for the tragedy here: Hughes
failed to integrate himself. The very fact that Hughes felt it necessary to
conceal the search for Foer's replacement is a red flag that Hughes had no
reason to ignore himself.

For a war-time leader to have a fighting chance, he'll need to integrate
himself and leverage the existing culture (and product). Regardless of how
much spin this article may cast, there's plenty of undeniable evidence that
Hughes failed to integrate. Hughes brought this failure upon himself.

------
dangerboysteve
Hughes and is cronies seem like a bunch of disingenuous buffoons.

~~~
asveikau
Near the end the article says something about how employees felt Hughes et al.
were dishonest, and if the article's telling is accurate that certainly seems
the case. Especially for Hughes to publicly praise Foer, give assurances that
he will stay, and meanwhile be looking for a replacement for months does seem
a bit slimey, though I guess people do this kind of thing all the time in
business.

Not being a management expert I wonder how to handle that specific aspect
better. One thing that comes to mind is to communicate your intentions well in
advance and allow for a slow transition. Maybe that's naive and wouldn't have
been possible, I don't know.

------
otikik
I expected a Star Wars-related news piece with that title.

------
marincounty
"The Siliconian came down like the wolf on the fold, And his cohorts were
gleaming in wireless gold, Crying Media Company Vertically Integrated! As all
before them they willfully extirpated: The Back of the Book and the Front and
the Middle, Until all that was left was digital piddle, And Thought and Word
lay dead and cold."

This poem really is really depressing. I hope it's not our future?

I'll get down voted, or Hell flamed(I really hate this cliched way of
speaking), but here goes; I'm all for progress, but I don't want to dumb down
journalism so it fit's in a digital format. After reading that poem I started
to think about the book A Brave New World, and odly enough I looked up how old
someone needs to be if they want to be a US President--yea--I forgot.

One other thing has been on my mind after reading this article, and reading a
lot if comments on HN over the years. I'll paraphrase because I'm old and
lazy, 'Apple didn't break the law. They were required to maximize shareholders
profits. I don't see a problem?' I've seen this line of thinking a lot. In my
world, my father taught me, "Just because it's legal son--doesn't make it
right!"

Maybe it's just me, but being Editor of a magazine like the New Republic
requires a very special person--a little age and wisdom(not out of a college
text book) seems like it would go a long way? Along with a long apprentiship
that many Journalists were once required to endure?

Don't get me wrong, I value youth and believe a lot of entrenched men of
authority should be put out to pasture, but when it to situations like what
transpired at the New Republic--my butt twitches. I picture the new editor
sending back stories with TLDR. Ugh-

------
rpenm
You'd think neoliberals would welcome a little creative destruction.

I hope writers like Cohn, Beutler and Ioffe land on their feet, but I'm
shedding no tears for TNR.

~~~
spopejoy
It's true, I'm mystified that TNR gets any respect at all. I've always equated
them with neoconservative/hawkish Democrat ideology, lockstep allegiance to
Israel, support for the invasion of Iraq etc etc. It's funny because when
Marty Peretz bought it in the 70s he pretty much kicked everyone out. I don't
know what politics Hughes has but here's hoping it's to the left of
Peretz/Weiseltier.

------
barkingcat
Crap. I was expecting a good writeup about how Palpatine screwed things up.

