4 ms·

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

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 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    EDIT: Sorry, I realize I misread the word "fall" in your post and saw "fail."
- drumdance 15y ago
  +1 for the Atlantic. They are the best I've seen at integration of the RT web experience with long form journalism.

simantel 15y ago

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 15y ago
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 15y ago
  EDIT: Sorry, I realize I misread the word "fall" in your post and saw "fail."
drumdance 15y ago
+1 for the Atlantic. They are the best I've seen at integration of the RT web experience with long form journalism.