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.
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.
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.
If Mr. Hughes gets rid of Peretz, I'll know he's trying to make a change for the better. If he keeps Peretz, he's telling me that change for the better doesn't interest him.
Thus far, Mr. Hughes has given the world Facebook and a huge presidential media campaign. I have limited hope that he'll turn TNR into a quality product with that track record.
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.
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?
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.
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.
'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.
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.
Can you please explain what makes the people running FB, and TNR, sociopaths, and how they claim mantle of semi-divinity (I am not sure what this means)?
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.
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."
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.
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.
