The new New Republic

by on February 11, 2013 at 6:52 pm in Current Affairs | Permalink

I thought I would wait until the second issue before offering an opinion.  I really like it.  I like almost everything in there, though I thought the opening issue interview with President Obama was a bit of a softball.  They have kept the genius of Jed Perl and they appear to have culled some of the weaker writers from the previous incarnation.  I can imagine reading almost everything they are printing, even if I don’t always get to it.  It still feels like The New Republic in a useful way.

Their web site is here, although there is much more in the print edition (I don’t yet understand their policies for when things go on-line, noting that the blame there probably lies with me).

I hope Chris Hughes knows that my liking it probably means it is financially doomed.  And I fear that its being good may not matter so much any more.

1 MC February 11, 2013 at 7:26 pm

Whom did they cull?

2 Thor February 11, 2013 at 8:34 pm

My question exactly.

3 The Original D February 11, 2013 at 10:13 pm

The Jews


4 Marco February 11, 2013 at 10:40 pm

Finally some diversity in the media.

5 Thor February 11, 2013 at 10:53 pm

Too bad. I like Easterbrook.

6 MD February 12, 2013 at 12:08 am

Easterbrook just wrote “game over” in his notebook.

7 Orange14 February 12, 2013 at 7:59 am

I’ve been subscribing to TNR since 1968 so I guess I have some history with the magazine. The took down the names of a lot of people who were listed as some type of contributor but in reality had not written for the magazine for a number of years. It was always strange that they were kept on the masthead after they quit writing but maybe the were friends of Marty (the former owner) who felt some kinship to them. There is nothing more to this and they were not really ‘culled’ as they had long been absent.

8 Bender Bending Rodriguez February 13, 2013 at 8:49 pm

The permanent TNR staff is whiter than an albino polar bear eating rice in a snow storm. That might be an acceptable editorial board for Stormfront, but it casts serious doubt on TNR’s credibility.

9 David T February 11, 2013 at 8:40 pm

“Financially doomed”? My understanding is that opinion magazines–online or print– almost *always* lose money, and owe their life to subsidies by wealthy donors (sometimes the owner) who like the magazine’s ideology. As William F. Buckley, Jr. once said, asked when National Review would ever make a profit , ” You don’t expect the church to make a profit, do you?”

10 have read lots of opinion magazines and known a few contributors February 11, 2013 at 11:00 pm

the economic/sociological purpose of opinion magazines in large countries, from liberal to conservative, is not to make money, it is to give a highly desired opportunity to the well-connected (an opportunity that is a scarce positional good), either on a sincere (in the magazines I agree with) or on a pecksniffian (in the other magazines) basis, to unflappably say over good meals and good wine or cognac to
younger intellectuals, whom they want to impress (for the whole range of human motivation), hey, you know, I could help you find an outlet … they would be thrilled to … you could make a difference …
while this is a hobby of the upper middle class and above, it is not reliant on
rich people, 99 percent of whom have no time for this type of recruitment

11 Jonathan February 11, 2013 at 8:54 pm

It is the worst mobile site on the web. I avoid the New Republic like the plague, especially when it is referred to by curators like the browser. Fix the mobile site!

12 Careless February 11, 2013 at 10:12 pm

No, that would be Quartz, a site that is literally unusable on any of my mobile devices. It’s amazing that we’re going backwards in internet technology already.

13 Jamie February 11, 2013 at 9:20 pm

It is a good site, it has a viewpoint, it makes a case intelligible to those who don’t do this all day. So yes, it is probably doomed.

14 Chuck Ross February 11, 2013 at 11:02 pm

i wish more bloggers/academics/pundits would NAME NAMES!! at least Krugman names names.

15 Andrew' February 12, 2013 at 5:06 am

Sure. But it would save time if he’d just say “everybody but me me me!”

16 content February 11, 2013 at 11:42 pm

is great but the website is a resource-hogging horrendous pile of cr**

17 JWatts February 12, 2013 at 11:21 am

And the layout looks like what you’d get from a Junior High Class for their Yearbook. Honestly form matters and they’d need a better looking, less cluttered web layout.

18 Yi February 11, 2013 at 11:53 pm

I admire TNR for bravely continuing their whites-only staff policy.
Sure, the TNR staff photo is whiter than a Klan meeting in winter — but I think that just makes their critique of white privilege stronger. They aren’t outsiders to white privilege. They’ve lived it.

Besides, most of the best progressive voices in the media have a similar whites-only policy.The writing staff at the Daily Show or Colbert Report are both great examples. The neat thing about employment discrimination laws — they don’t apply if you are a reliable mouthpiece for the Democrats.

Hey, if they wanted diversity they’d send their kids to public schools like the peasants.

19 Marco February 12, 2013 at 12:03 am

Tiresome race-baiting. If you believe in white supremacy, you should be condemning TNR only for not being forthright and open in their tribal loyalties. If you don’t, you shouldn’t be trivializing the issue by making it about scoring points against your blue state adversaries.

You’re arguing in bad faith.

20 mofo February 12, 2013 at 8:39 am

I dont know, i thought this was fairly good snark. Of course, im a sucker for anyone who takes a poke at the arrogant white liberal elite so ill give this effort a B+.

P.S., he’s not really arguing in bad faith because he is not really arguing in the first place.

21 JWatts February 12, 2013 at 11:23 am

“You’re arguing in bad faith.”

I think you missed the sarcasm.

Or in web speak, that’s a snark not a concern troll.

22 FredR February 12, 2013 at 12:04 am

I feel bad for Ezra Klein. The profile seemed to paint him as a soulless networker.

23 CG February 12, 2013 at 1:28 am

Agreed, he seemed obsessive, even paranoid, about his image and reputation. But you gotta respect him for honestly putting it all out there, even if it’s just for getting more pageviews.

Entertaining and well-written, but also written with hints of envy and condescending journalistic judgment cloaked as even-handedness.

Not only did TNR line the article with douchey pictures of Ezra Klein, they also topped it off with this douchey correction, as a big fuck you to Wonkblog, further reinforcing the piece’s theme of EK’s obsession with image control:

“This piece has been updated because the print version incorrectly states that Wonkblog brings in over four million unique viewers every month, when in fact it brings in over four million page views every month. We regret the error.”

24 Yancey Ward February 12, 2013 at 10:48 am

So, what was Obama’s favorite color?

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: