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?

2 of 346 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Who cares... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 0, Troll

    You have a good point. The U.S. considers those who espouse totalitarianism to be outside of the main stream. Once you enter into the realm of supporting totalitarianism, we no longer consider it worth our time to discuss how you disagree with someone else who supports totalitarianism. Whereas most of the rest of the world considers the political spectrum to run from totalitarianism on one end to totalitarianism on the other, with the distinction being how that totalitarianism is run and who runs it.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  2. Re: Who cares... by bledri · · Score: 1, Troll

    By the way, Barack Obama is hard left which is why the American media fucking love him.

    The US doesn't have a meaningful left anymore and Obama is to the right of Richard fucking Nixon (ended the draft, signed the EPA and Title IX into law, desegregation, and a proponent of the 26th amendment). All the real political fighting is over wedge issues where I happen to side with what Obama says (but doesn't necessarily do): Gay rights, access to birth control, etc... As far as actual economics go, Obama is firmly entrenched with the large financial institutions. As is the actual Republican party (the part of the party that wields any power).

    The whole left-right political spectrum in the US is absolute bullshit. In general boiling down all complex issues down to a single dimension is completely meaningless. But if Obama was on the left, he would have tried for a single-payer healthcare system.

    The economy is way better than when GW Bush left office, yet everyone blames Obama for the economy. Of course it's a systemic issue, not really much under the control of any President, but the spin sure is interesting. You'd think a media that "fucking loves" Obama would make a bigger deal out of his accomplishments. One last thing, the effective tax rate for the rich is at a near historic low while it's simultaneously at near historic highs for the poor. Obama has tried to rectify that, but the right seems only interested in tax cuts for the rich. Maybe Obama would be a "leftest" if he could be, but the current political reality is so skewed that his record is far right of center. (I'm referring to the center of the possible political spectrum, not the center of the paucity of choices we have.)

    --
    Some privacy policy Slashdot.