Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Inside the Collapse of the New Republic

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 64 posts

Re: Inside the Collapse of the New Republic

#51

Post by waterlesscloud »

bhouston wrote: post #43
escape_goat wrote: post #25

There is something deeply tragicomic about Vidra's role in this. I know nothing about the man, and it would be too easy to disparage him on this basis of this report; one should presume that he has management and organizational skills well suited to an executive position, and one should not forget that he seems to have been completely hamstrung by the owner's ill-fated activism and engagement with the magazine, whate…

The TNR was never profitable though and likely could never be given its current structure. But I wonder why buy and gut TNR if you could have just started a separate endeavor. TNR isn't that strong of a name - it is just a name is relatively small circles of elitists.

Let's be blunt about it- Buying TNR was an attempt to buy status with the old school intellectual liberal elite. Which is completely valid as far as it goes.

The unimaginably bad mistake is to then screw around with it in a way that makes it no longer what he was trying to buy.

Re: Inside the Collapse of the New Republic

#52

Post by waterlesscloud »

mturmon wrote: post #13
georgeoliver wrote: post #5

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 journ…

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 billiona…

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.

Re: Inside the Collapse of the New Republic

#54

Post by dangerboysteve »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #51
bhouston wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The TNR was never profitable though and likely could never be given its current structure. But I wonder why buy and gut TNR if you could have just started a separate endeavor. TNR isn't that strong of a name - it is just a name is relatively small circles of elitists.

Let's be blunt about it- Buying TNR was an attempt to buy status with the old school intellectual liberal elite. Which is completely valid as far as it goes. The unimaginably bad mistake is to then screw around with it in a way that makes it no longer what he was trying to buy.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this. And it echoed the same approach he and his husband took for their political foray.

Re: Inside the Collapse of the New Republic

#55

Post by Bulkington »

georgeoliver wrote: post #5

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 journ…

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-johns...

And this: http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/12/01/if-you-cant-parody...

Re: Inside the Collapse of the New Republic

#56

Post by asveikau »

dangerboysteve wrote: post #53

Hughes and is cronies seem like a bunch of disingenuous buffoons.

Near the end the article says something about how employees felt Hughes et al. were dishonest, and if the article's telling is accurate that certainly seems the case. Especially for Hughes to publicly praise Foer, give assurances that he will stay, and meanwhile be looking for a replacement for months does seem a bit slimey, though I guess people do this kind of thing all the time in business.

Not being a management expert I wonder how to handle that specific aspect better. One thing that comes to mind is to communicate your intentions well in advance and allow for a slow transition. Maybe that's naive and wouldn't have been possible, I don't know.

Re: Inside the Collapse of the New Republic

#57

Post by morgante »

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?

When you consider that many outlets only play $200-1000 for a piece, $2000 is a lot of money. Journalism is not software development.

Re: Inside the Collapse of the New Republic

#58

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> However the author couldn't come up with any specific examples where Hughes or Vidra are unreasonable people

I would say the key point of the lines you quote isn't that they were unreasonable people, but that they catastrophically failed to understand the staff -- resulting in them being seen as unreasonable.

Though, there's plenty of specific examples -- most of the article, in fact -- of specific events that contributed to this feeling, and specific warnings that Hughes received that should not have made the mass exodus a surprise.

Re: Inside the Collapse of the New Republic

#59

Post by dragonwriter »

GabrielF00 wrote: post #4

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 magazi…

> 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.

Re: Inside the Collapse of the New Republic

#60

Post by dragonwriter »

georgeoliver wrote: post #5

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 journ…

> 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.

Post reply on HN