Inside the Collapse of the New Republic • Hacker News Board

Re: Inside the Collapse of the New Republic

#31

Post by afro88 » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 7:54 AM UTC

paulsutter wrote: post #24

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 co…

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.

Re: Inside the Collapse of the New Republic

#32

Post by jahewson » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 7:58 AM UTC

danso wrote: post #12

> 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 aroun…

I guess that frying pan should've been placed on a fire instead :p

Re: Inside the Collapse of the New Republic

#33

Post by aridiculous » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 8:27 AM UTC

rpenm wrote: post #29

mynameishere wrote: post #17

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…

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 a…

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

Re: Inside the Collapse of the New Republic

#34

Post by rjbwork » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 8:30 AM UTC

qq66 wrote: post #23

kyllo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Inside the Collapse of the New Republic

#35

Post by pixelmonkey » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 9:37 AM UTC

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-...

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.

Re: Inside the Collapse of the New Republic

#36

Post by 001sky » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 9:41 AM UTC

kyllo wrote: post #15

danso wrote: post #12

> 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 aroun…

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.

Your're exactly right, of course.

The people making bets on video are MBAs trying to fit numbers into spreadsheets. The video "growth story" is a multiple expander for future earnings growth {blah blah blah}. But such is the sway of the ad/cpm based biz model.

The inefficiency of video is the alure...to the advertsiing people on Madison avenue. The emotional malleability and inertia of the video experience is arguably a much stronger context to insert a behaviour modifier. Because its less efficiency, you are more open to new ideas...the hyper-efficient mindset and instinct is turned off...etc.

I'm sure you know this, but its worth spelling out in context here.

Re: Inside the Collapse of the New Republic

#37

Post by bsder » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 9:57 AM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #21

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 ar…

> 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.

Re: Inside the Collapse of the New Republic

#38

Post by aphelion » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 11:07 AM UTC

rpenm wrote: post #29

mynameishere wrote: post #17

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…

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 a…

The influence journals like TNR and The New Criterion once had were wholly unrelated to their tiny readership numbers and instead depended upon the fact that they were for a time considered required reading for much of the political and cultural elite.

Re: Inside the Collapse of the New Republic

#39

Post by choppaface » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 11:59 AM UTC

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.

Re: Inside the Collapse of the New Republic

#40

Post by pfortuny » Sat, Dec 13, 2014, 12:56 PM UTC

mynameishere wrote: post #17

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…

Exactly: you are eager to lose money because you value the outcome in a different (non-monetary) way. Value is not necessarily convertible to dollars.