Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Founder Presents Vision For The New Republic, Many Resign In Protest
SkiTee94 writes: Chris Hughes, one of the original founders of Facebook, is in damage control mode to save his recently acquired, century-old publication The New Republic. In response to Hughes' vision to turn the highly respected, and most would say old school, publication into a "digital media company," about a dozen senior editors and writers simply quit (out of a 54-person staff). One of the editors who quit said, "The narrative that they are putting out there is that it is the 21st century and we have to innovate and adapt. ... We don’t know what their vision is. It is Silicon Valley mumbo jumbo buzzwords that don’t mean anything." Is Hughes a visionary cleaning out dead wood or a clueless tech star leaving destruction in his wake?
I've heard Hughes speak. He enjoys pushing new things simply because they're new, not because they'll actually improve the product.
Sad to see this happen to TNR.
For the past 40 years TNR has apparently been owned by a incredibly bigoted person who used the liberal credibility of the magazine to push his white supremacists ideas. Certainly these ideals are accepted in some circles, but not the target audience of the TNR. As a new generation who was not raised on overt bigotry came into being, a generation that pretty uniformly saw the assassination of MLK through history books, not newscasts, and were not raised on magazine subscriptions, the new century saw the circulation of the new republic cut in half. The white supremacy could no longer be covered with the inertia of the respect of the magazine.
In this way we see the problems of TNR firmly rooted in old ideas and the destruction of the brand by the previous owner. If the brand is to be rehabilitated it is going to require the jettison of the previous ideas that are not consistent with far left ideology, and those who think that white supremacy is consistent with anything real in the US were free to leave with the editors.
TNR is only going to be saved by re branding as an online source of liberal news and analysis. While the editors did not promote any kind of white supremacy, they were complicit in the past, and that may have been a problem in the present.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Some networks just report and show the very few instances of violence, while another network focuses on the violence because their viewers' World view is that black people are violent subhumans.
The rioting African-Americans are doing an excellent job painting themselves as violent, rioting, racist subhumans without assistance from the media. Hell, even President Obama and Attorney General Holder have been caught "acting black' in the current administration. Monkey see, monkey do?
From other sources we learn that the staff resigned over the fact that he fired the top editor for the magazine by announcing his replacement on Gawker. This action followed bringing in a new CEO who acted in ways they interpreted as having no respect for the traditions of the organization (there is, by the way, a difference between deciding that traditions need to be changed and disrespecting those traditions).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
LOL
Hows Obama's position on those H1-B visas treating you and just how much income have you lost.
Or how's that UVA rape thing going for you ? Fake but Accurate again ?
come 2016 let me know how you feel Hillary is working out for you.
Except that facebook's "like" is not used for feedback. It's in part a tiny show of endorsement and in part a major show of common agreement on a topic. My sister was in hospital recently and posted it on Facebook. Most of her friends, family and myself hit the like button. It was acknowledgement that we saw and read, nothing more.
Facebook doesn't need a "don't like" button, it just needs to change the word "like" to something else.