The new New Republic

Back in the 1970s and 80s, I subscribed to The New Republic, which was at that time a progressive news magazine that respected it's readers' intelligence and presented in depth articles of interest to me.   It was definitely considered a liberal, intelligent journal of news, culture, and opinion.   I felt in synch with it.

It's 98 year history was deeply entwined with Martin Peretz, its owner, publisher, and columnist from 1974 to 2005.  Peretz is a former Harvard professor and progressive thinker.  He hired a series of intelligent editors, including Andrew Sullivan, a gay man at a time when that was still very unusual.  Those were the good days.

Then it went through a more conservative phase, at least on some topics. My problem was with Perez himself, and I parted ways with TNR somewhere back in the 90s when he became increasingly strident in his denunciation of anyone who disagreed with him about Israel and its more right-wing, knee-jerk positions toward the Palestinians.   In print, he viciously attacked those who defended Muslims, and public opinion twice forced him to print apologies for bigoted and insulting comments about Muslims and those who showed any sympathy for them.   One long-term observer commented that Peretz "was born belligerent."

Eric Alterman, who writes for The Nation, wrote about Peretz:

"[D]uring his reign, Peretz has also done lasting damage to the cause of American liberalism. By turning TNR into a kind of ideological police dog, Peretz enjoyed... [playing] a key role in defining the borders of "responsible" liberal discourse, thereby tarring anyone who disagreed as irresponsible or untrustworthy. But he did so on the basis of a politics simultaneously so narrow and idiosyncratic — in thrall almost entirely to an Israel-centric neoconservatism."

Several years ago, Peretz sold his majority ownership interest in the financially struggling magazine.  Now comes the announcement that Chris Hughes has bought a controlling interest in The New Republic.  Hughes is 28 and a co-founder of Facebook along with Mark Zuckerberg -- and therefore wealthy enough to have bought himself a magazine.

This is not just a vanity purchase, however.  Hughes will assume the position of publisher and editor-in-chief, and there is good reason to be optimistic about the future of TNR.   First, Hughes has the financial resources to keep the magazine going at a time when long-form, print journalism in particular is losing economically.

Second, he brings the technical knowledge and vision to move the magazine into the digital age and plans to do so with an electronic version.

And, third, he has a history of progressive, liberal political thought and is committed to this form of journalism.   He joined the 2008 Obama campaign early on to spearhead its digital organizing.   Huffington Post reports:

While new ownership inevitably causes some wariness, staffers walked away from the hour-long meeting [with Hughes] pleased by what they heard . . .  Hughes said he plans to expand the staff, a marked difference from the contraction and layoffs the money-losing magazine has seen in recent years. And while Hughes sits on the progressive side of the fence, he suggested that the magazine shouldn't be in lock-step with any political agenda. While tilting left, the New Republic has a long tradition of contrarianism, even boasting top editors, like Andrew Sullivan years back, who identify as conservatives.

 Hughes' private comments about the New Republic's future [include]:

"I believe that the demand for long-form quality journalism is strong in our country and I think that, despite all the changes in technology over the past few years, people still want in-depth, rigorous reporting. . . .  The New Republic has been a place where that has happened and under my leadership, and the leadership of folks there, we'll double down on that."

This may turn out to be a good thing to save a venerable and valuable journal.   What I fear most in the turn to the internet for news and opinion is that in depth, investigative journalism will get lost in the rush to fill up the 24/7 news cycle -- which is sadly what's happened to cable TV news.

Ralph