4 ms·

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

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?

wonsler 12y ago
His job was to go about it the right way. It doesn't help anyone to write buggy code.
rst 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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-amazon-vine-reviewers-sabotaged-my-book http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119875/margo-howard-amazo...]
dragonwriter 12y ago
> 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? Sure, just as if he can't sell his particular ideas to his staff, its there prerogative to leave. Of course, if he has spent two years "cultivating" them and then is surprised when there is an exodus -- even after having been specifically told that that would be the result if the editor that he replaced left -- then clearly his work at "cultivating" his staff is pretty good. And if he has that little understanding of what motivates a fairly small group of people he actively interacted with for an extended period of time, one might also wonder how good of a grasp he has of what motivates the audience he is seeking with TNR.

wonsler 12y ago

His job was to go about it the right way. It doesn't help anyone to write buggy code.

rst 12y ago

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 12y ago
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-amazon-vine-reviewers-sabotaged-my-book http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119875/margo-howard-amazo...]

dragonwriter 12y ago

> 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? Sure, just as if he can't sell his particular ideas to his staff, its there prerogative to leave. Of course, if he has spent two years "cultivating" them and then is surprised when there is an exodus -- even after having been specifically told that that would be the result if the editor that he replaced left -- then clearly his work at "cultivating" his staff is pretty good. And if he has that little understanding of what motivates a fairly small group of people he actively interacted with for an extended period of time, one might also wonder how good of a grasp he has of what motivates the audience he is seeking with TNR.