5 ms·

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

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?

rwallace 12y ago
At a guess, Hughes is a businessman; he's used to dealing with people with economic motives. From the description, that magazine seems to be a primarily political institution; its staff were in it for the politics, not the money, which probably took Hughes by surprise.
- smacktoward 12y ago
  Nobody with even a nodding acquaintance with The New Republic should have been surprised that its people weren't primarily in it for the money. TNR has been a money-losing proposition for most of its 100-year history. People write for it because of its reputation and audience, not because it pays the most per word.
mturmon 12y ago
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 12y ago
  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_sam.php http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2008/02/words_of_chairman_...
  - mturmon 12y ago
    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-times-zell-makes-point-shocking-staffers-unorthodox-speech-speaks-harshl http://www.bulldogreporter.com/dailydog/article/turmoil-la-t... 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 ;-).
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  Whoever is responsible for it, the LAT's online presence is much better than it was 5 years ago. I don't know if it's working for them money-wise, but as a reader I've been happy with their direction.
Spooky23 12y ago
Frankly, he probably has more money than sense. He funded his husband's congressional campaign against a republican in the New York Hudson Valley and was defeated handily, even after spending a ridiculous amount of cash. Hell, even the local NPR guy thought it was a not-so-great effort.
Bulkington 12y ago
HN Journalist here, survivor of several 'digital first' revolutions and now, officially, a 'content director' and glad to have a very good job. A couple of things: 1. A really good newsroom is really tight. Very few print-trained journalists are in it for the money, so the cause and comradeship are everything. A quick way to ruin a newsroom is to implement sweeping changes that have nothing to do with good storytelling (and also mean a lot of extra work). I've been through several of these reorganizations. In the worst, management delivers a master plan heavy on digital/social goals but then provides no tools or training. Essentially, somebody went to yet another publishing conference, heard the latest on why everyone's losing money, or what sort of digital results you need to hit the multiples the current VC owners want to flip their share ... Oh hell, this is too frustrating to relive. Gist: By and large, print journos don't do digital. A good story is a good story, but the tools/skills are essentially different. It's like telling someone skilled with an epee she's going to have start breaking boards. Ordering an accomplished story teller to deliver a list and a quiz each week and promote them heavily across multiple social platforms, for example, is a mistake. You want clickbait, get a pro. You want video, get a pro--not GoPros and iMovie tips for the writers. 2. Of course, owners are absolutely expected to do what they think is best for a property. And outside of TNR alums and friends of recent staff, the reaction of journalists has been largely to shrug: Nothing new here, other than the duly noted wrongheadedness of trying to make TNR something it's never been. (There's also probably some jealously: TNR was a good gig.) But this is what we all fear: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/charles-johnson-a-digital-darth-vader-113522.html http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/charles-johns... And this: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/01/if-you-cant-parody-them/ http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/01/if-you-cant-parody...
dragonwriter 12y ago
> 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. Especially after he was pretty directly told by one of the senior editors about earlier appearances that Foer might be on the way out that "For a while there it seemed like Frank was leaving and us senior editors were like, I guess we’re leaving, too!" I mean, there's one thing about missing subtle clues, and there's another about being hit over the head with a clue-by-four and still managing to be surprised.
- smcnally 12y ago
  Others share your surprise. From the piece: "Another said, “He was shocked. And I’m kind of shocked that he was shocked. He was trying to make sense of it all.”"

rwallace 12y ago

At a guess, Hughes is a businessman; he's used to dealing with people with economic motives. From the description, that magazine seems to be a primarily political institution; its staff were in it for the politics, not the money, which probably took Hughes by surprise.

smacktoward 12y ago
Nobody with even a nodding acquaintance with The New Republic should have been surprised that its people weren't primarily in it for the money. TNR has been a money-losing proposition for most of its 100-year history. People write for it because of its reputation and audience, not because it pays the most per word.

mturmon 12y ago

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 12y ago
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_sam.php http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2008/02/words_of_chairman_...
- mturmon 12y ago
  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-times-zell-makes-point-shocking-staffers-unorthodox-speech-speaks-harshl http://www.bulldogreporter.com/dailydog/article/turmoil-la-t... 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 ;-).
waterlesscloud 12y ago
Whoever is responsible for it, the LAT's online presence is much better than it was 5 years ago. I don't know if it's working for them money-wise, but as a reader I've been happy with their direction.

Spooky23 12y ago

Frankly, he probably has more money than sense. He funded his husband's congressional campaign against a republican in the New York Hudson Valley and was defeated handily, even after spending a ridiculous amount of cash. Hell, even the local NPR guy thought it was a not-so-great effort.

Bulkington 12y ago

HN Journalist here, survivor of several 'digital first' revolutions and now, officially, a 'content director' and glad to have a very good job. A couple of things: 1. A really good newsroom is really tight. Very few print-trained journalists are in it for the money, so the cause and comradeship are everything. A quick way to ruin a newsroom is to implement sweeping changes that have nothing to do with good storytelling (and also mean a lot of extra work). I've been through several of these reorganizations. In the worst, management delivers a master plan heavy on digital/social goals but then provides no tools or training. Essentially, somebody went to yet another publishing conference, heard the latest on why everyone's losing money, or what sort of digital results you need to hit the multiples the current VC owners want to flip their share ... Oh hell, this is too frustrating to relive. Gist: By and large, print journos don't do digital. A good story is a good story, but the tools/skills are essentially different. It's like telling someone skilled with an epee she's going to have start breaking boards. Ordering an accomplished story teller to deliver a list and a quiz each week and promote them heavily across multiple social platforms, for example, is a mistake. You want clickbait, get a pro. You want video, get a pro--not GoPros and iMovie tips for the writers. 2. Of course, owners are absolutely expected to do what they think is best for a property. And outside of TNR alums and friends of recent staff, the reaction of journalists has been largely to shrug: Nothing new here, other than the duly noted wrongheadedness of trying to make TNR something it's never been. (There's also probably some jealously: TNR was a good gig.) But this is what we all fear: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/charles-johnson-a-digital-darth-vader-113522.html http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/charles-johns... And this: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/01/if-you-cant-parody-them/ http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/01/if-you-cant-parody...

dragonwriter 12y ago

> 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. Especially after he was pretty directly told by one of the senior editors about earlier appearances that Foer might be on the way out that "For a while there it seemed like Frank was leaving and us senior editors were like, I guess we’re leaving, too!" I mean, there's one thing about missing subtle clues, and there's another about being hit over the head with a clue-by-four and still managing to be surprised.

smcnally 12y ago
Others share your surprise. From the piece: "Another said, “He was shocked. And I’m kind of shocked that he was shocked. He was trying to make sense of it all.”"