"Searching for a 'sustainable' 'business model' for opinion magazines has a long, researchable, & 99.9% futile history," contends Reason editor-in-chief Matt Welch, in response to The New Republic publisher and executive chairman Chris Hughes 800 words on crafting a sustainable New Republic after half of his masthead disappeared into a black hole on Friday. Not everyone disagreed with Hughes' points: The Blaze's Steve Krakauer reasons, "Chris Hughes makes a lot of sense about the future of media, far beyond the fate of @tnr." But most people aren't buying Hughes' vision. Former contributor Jonathan Chait adds, "'Despite what has been suggested, the vast majority of our staff remain.' Also, we won't be publishing for 3 months." Glenn Greenwald also observes, "Interesting/weird choice by @ChrisHughes to put this in the WashPost rather than ..... @tnr." And look, Dana Milbank also wrote a Washington Post piece on TNR--only Milbank's is titled "The New Republic is dead, thanks to its owner."
Well, that's awkward.
Over at The New York Times, Jonathan Mahler and Ravi Somaiya also dissect the revolt at the New New Republic. An amazing Michael Kinsley quote to take away from that piece: "It’s his magazine, and if he wants to wreck it, he can.” ... Still, a shame the handle @TNNR is already taken.