Franklin Foer Is Named Top Editor of New Republic

Ah. A good choice:

Franklin Foer Is Named Top Editor of New Republic: Franklin Foer, a senior editor with the magazine, is quietly taking over the shop next week.... [T]he magazine that Mr. Foer, 31, takes over is hardly on a roll. The New Republic's circulation has dropped by almost 40 percent in four years; it cut its circulation and staff salaries after aggressively spending on the Web in 2002. Meanwhile, its historical role as a maypole for middle-way Democrats is under challenge from countless Web sites and bloggers.... But the magazine is financially stable, its owners say, in part because there are now four of them. Roger Hertog and Michael Steinhardt, successful New York financiers with an interest in policy and media, were enticed in 2002 to share in The New Republic's glories and seemingly inevitable losses with its longtime owner and editor in chief, Martin Peretz. More recently, CanWest, a Canadian media conglomerate bought a share as well.

To look at The New Republic, with a weekly circulation of 62,000 and a demure size of about 40 pages, the subject of who might be its editor would seem to be a game that is played in a very small parlor....

This is the question: can the New Republic remain a central place for center-left argument in the digital age? What are its edges?

Comments

[Steve]

I felt it lost its poop when Clinton was elected. Initially it seemed to lose its thunder when it was no longer part of the loyal opposition. Then under Kelly it took a lot of cheap shots at Clinton, attacking him from the right.

As an undergrad I wanted nothing more than to write for The New Republic. It was a great supplement to my education. The Times gets it right: the real action is in the blogs nowadays.

[liberal]

"This is the question: can the New Republic remain a central place for center-left argument in the digital age?"

Huh? TNR hasn't been center-left since Martin Peretz bought it decades ago. (Of course, he recently sold it.)

[Tad Brennan]

Yeah, I should be their demographic. But Marty Peretz's emails go right into the junk box now. And I don't see that changing any time soon.

[Matthew Saroff]

The New Republic is not moderate. It's there to provide cover to conservatives, and particularly NeoCons.

"Even the liberal New Republic" is their audience now, conservatives who want to show bipartisanship.

[Michael Froomkin]

Bah! NR hasn't been center-left, indeed dubiously center, for many a long year. Its main function in life is to be included in things for 'balance' by people who don't want any.

[bakho]

Not only is TNR not moderate, it has a credibility problem. Michael Kelly destroyed most TNR credibility. The TNR policy of having all their articles behind a firewall makes them irrelevant. Is there anyone writing for TNR that makes them must-read-worth-the subscription-price? RollingStone has better political articles.

[liberal]

Matthew Saroff wrote, "It's there to provide cover to conservatives, and particularly NeoCons."

Right.

After Peretz bought it in the 1970s, the foreign policy outlook was simple: if something was deemed good for Israel (the government, of course), then it was good.

Let's also not forget TNR's big support for the Contras in the 1980s.

Nor Andrew Sullivan's despicable shilling for that faux-scientific treatise, _The Bell Curve_.

[roast]

Michael Kelly?
Is this the same charm-boy that drove a stake into the heart of the Atlantic Monthly?

[kharris]

Anybody know if TNR's circulation slippage is representative of publications that are focused on politics and other high-minded stuff, or is a result of business misteps of some kind?

I find it hard to believe that the mere fact of which political demographic a publication serves could crush readership. I find it more likely that changing the editorial thrust to please new owners or advertisers, while pretending to continue serving the traditional readership, would damage circulation. If you have a smart readership, it doesn't pay to treat them as if they are not smart.

[Gene O'Grady]

Can't speak for a whole demographic, but as one whose opinion of TNR has been trending steadily downward since I tried subscribing in 1993, I think it's a question of readers' tiring of writers who constantly rub it in your face that their smarter, more sophisticated, more in the know than the reader. Brad DeLong really is smarter than I am, but, whether I agree or disagree with him, I appreciate the fact that he rarely takes the trouble to rub it in. Not so TNR. Plus the contrarianism is more dated than a hula hoop.

[Anderson]

As I recall, there was exactly one political magazine that took Joe Lieberman's 2004 candidacy seriously.

That made it impossible to take TNR seriously.

I hope Foer brings some reality to 'em.

[John M]

It is not the medium -- a reborn TNR can compete aainst the blogs. The problem is the rotten content. Its fealty to the Sharonites, its obsessive contrarianism ("We're Democrats, but we'll support the Republicans until that perfect Democrat comes along, which we expect to be never"), its sick love of the Neocons. Foer will have to do a lot to get me back.

[Robin]

The magazine that published early excerpts from The Bell Curve without reflection or comment? Center-Left?

[Matthew Saroff]

Regarding the question on TNR's circulation: While it's been falling, the Nation's has been rising.

Basically, it abandoned its readership, and is chasing the readers of the National Review while pretending to be for Democrats.

Losing proposition.

[liberal]

John M wrote, "Its fealty to the Sharonites, ... its sick love of the Neocons."

Again, the point TNR went down that road is very easy to pinpoint precisely: when Martin Peretz purchased the magazine in the 1970s.

It was a _long_ time ago.

[liberal]

A good discussion of TNR can be found in Chapter 9, " 'Even The New Republic'," of _Sound and Fury: The Washington Punditocracy and the Collapse of American Politics_, by Eric Alterman, 1992.

[otey2]

TNR and I parted ways with their publication of a Manhattan Institue review of the Clinton health plan.

The review was an exercise in bad faith analysis, but most of us didn't figure that out until later. When it was too late.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

To the extent that I read TNR, I do so in spite of Martin Peretz, not because of him. The periodic e-mails from him are almost reason enough to stop reading on-line. Otherwise, they have some good writers, but the brand doesn't mean much, thanks to their regular urge to contrarianism.

[Barry]

"Michael Kelly?
Is this the same charm-boy that drove a stake into the heart of the Atlantic Monthly?"

Posted by: roast

Yes. Fortunately, he's not around anymore; he died in a Humvee accident at the beginning of the Iraq War. Good riddance to bad rubbish; I just wish that it had been an IED, and that he lingered for a while, to get a taste of what he inflicted on so many people.

[Rebecca Allen, RN, PhD]

The New Republic is the Joe Lieberman/Mickey Kaus of political magazines: it pretends to be relevant by consistently disrespecting the opinions of their historical readership. Why they're surprised that this had led to a massive drop in readers is a mystery to me.

[Dale]

Barry,
Bad taste. A little compassion and civility- even for those we dislike or disagree with- is most always a good thing to display.

[Matthew Saroff]

Barry,
Bad taste. A little compassion and civility- even for those we dislike or disagree with- is most always a good thing to display.

Posted by: Dale | February 28, 2006 at 12:00 PM

Generally, but the man was pond scum. He gave us Glass, pursued Monica-gate with a passion, and lied through his teeth.

I won't dance on (or urinate on) his grave, as I might for Karl Rove, and will one day for Ayn Rand, but the world is a better place by his absence.

[Dustin R. Ridgeway]

I'm a pretty loyal reader of TNR and I consider it an excellent publication. I have my own issues with it, but I don't share the same criticisms many of it's antagonists take towards it, many of which I consider illegitimate & unfair. Nonetheless, TNR does have a PR problem and instituting Foer (who has 'some' cred in the blogosphere is part of shoring that up) the other part is to reconsider the nature of the magazine somewhat. People don't read The Nation or National Review because those publications try to challenge their readers to reconsider their views often. TNR's success will depend on it being lsightly more isolationist and less supportive of the State of Israel. I don't see how it can shed it's tag as a "Beltway" publication, considering one of it's strengths has always been that those who read it tend to be movers & shakers or close to the movers & shakers in D.C.

[Ralph]

TNR might be considered center-right only because the despicable Peter Beinart is a regular commentator on CNN just as his right wind blog counterpart Andrew Sullivan is. Correspondingly, a former Nation columnist Christopher Hitchens dropped his liberal left pretensions joining the Iraq invasion devotees at Hardball-MSNBC with his regular (disheveled) appearances.

[Steve]

I have to chime in on the denigration of Kelly. Respect for the dead is all good and well, but Kelly should have asked himself when he was alive: "when I die, how will I be remembered?"

[piotr]

De Mortuis Nil Nisi Bene?

Perhaps one should not follow it literally, but I feel that we can give some deference to the dead.

Alive, Michael Kelly was a vituperative mental midget. Dead, he is a sad victim of his own delusions (splendid little war, greeting with flowers etc.)

If Peretz is no longer influencing TNR, and the new team has some brains and bussiness sense, TNR may become a valuable magazine. The Nation is a bit to humorless and I worry that it is economically naive. Mother Jones is a bit too fluffy, Utne Reader is waaaay to fluffy etc.

More seriously, we need an intelligent debate. Free market wisdoms seem to be loosing their value, but suppose that we want to revert to protectionism: I, for one, have no idea how it can be done. Economic populists should be challenged by inteligent moderates (and vice versa). While tpm tries to provide such a forum, I feel that print medium is a better place for longer and more analytical articles.

[bncthor]

..."If Peretz is no longer influencing TNR, and the new team has some brains and business sense, TNR may become a valuable magazine."

We can all wish that this be the case. And, I will give it until the expiration of my current subscription to do so.

[Barry]

Dale:

"Barry,
Bad taste. A little compassion and civility- even for those we dislike or disagree with- is most always a good thing to display."

Dale, I'll have the compassion and civility for him that he displayed for his political opponents, and the opponents of the Iraq War. The same civility that the GOP had for Cleland, Kerry and Murtha. The same compassion that they had for Cindy Sheehan.

[Barry]

Dustin R. Ridgeway: "TNR's success will depend on it being lsightly more isolationist and less supportive of the State of Israel. I don't see how it can shed it's tag as a "Beltway" publication, considering one of it's strengths has always been that those who read it tend to be movers & shakers or close to the movers & shakers in D.C."

Does anybody know if it is read by anybody who's a mover and shaker in DC? Their staffs?

[Mike]

Whether or not The New Republic is left, CanWest isn't -- at least not by Canadian standards. They run about a quarter of all the newspapers in this country, have holdings in TV, and have used both to further a neo-liberal agenda (although that might be considered progressive south of the border). After buying a huge chunk of Conrad Black's empire, the Aspers began promoting the Liberal party and fired those who wrote stories critical of Jean Chretien. Google Izzy and/or Leonard Asper, CanWest Global, Ottawa Citizen, Russell Mills for more.

[John Faughnan]

The Economist recently announced, in a small box titled 'local news' that their editor of 13 or so years is retiring.

During that time The Economist doubled her subscriptions and slashed quality. It's American coverage became a slighly less batty version of the WSJ's editorial pages. Ok, so lately Lexington has been equally as batty as the WSJ.

I was planning not to renew this year (it's been 20 years), a wise choice of new editor might change my mind.

[ScroopMoth]

Peretz remains at the top of the masthead and writes today about what Israelis think, as he did recently about what Perot voters think.

The only way TNR can transform its conversation with readers like me is to reckon with the insult and injury of Peretz' ugly rhetoric.

Peretz accuses liberals of "churlishness" for failing to "admire" the wonders the noble W "has so far wrought." Liberals deserve only contempt for failing to "proliferate" liberalism, so Perets savors the sweet irony of their humiliation by a glorious tide of history.

Peretz delivered this famous insult a year ago. Insulting because he didn't offer the customary link for comments. To my knowledge, Peretz has never had to defend his outrageous language.

Here are some gems from "The Politics of Churlishness"

[Violence in Iraq] "evokes an unmistakable but macabre schadenfreude among many critics of the war, who want nothing of history except to be proved right. It is as if suicide bombings and other sorts of helter-skelter murder were a just judgment on the wrongdoings. . .of the Bush administration."

"But the mission is . . .showing thrilling accomplishments. It is simply stupid, empirically and philosophically, to deny that all or any of this would have happened without the deeply unpopular but historically grand initiative of Bush."

". . .the democratization of the region is working. Have Democrats begun to wonder how it came to pass that this noble cause became the work of Republicans? They should wonder if they care to regain power."

[Barry]

[re: the Economist]

"I was planning not to renew this year (it's been 20 years), a wise choice of new editor might change my mind."

Posted by: John Faughnan

John, you said that their quality had fallen and that their subscriptions had doubled. I wouldn't write a check until I learned for sure that they won't stick with that winning formula.