Title: I think I&#x27;m exactly the audience that TNR wants. I&#x27;m well-educated, make a good living, largely agree with them politically, enjoy long-form journalism, and am familiar with the brand and its history. Yet I don&#x27;t think I would ever subscribe to TNR. I just see a magazine as something that&#x27;s going to pile up in my house. I can read more than enough great content online for free. If I was going to subscribe to a magazine, I think that The New Yorker is a lot more interesting than The New Republic. If I was going to subscribe to two magazines, I might pick the Atlantic or another competitor over TNR.<p>The media has largely portrayed this as Hughes carelessly destroying a renowned and vital institution. Hughes has certainly made some mistakes, but I wonder whether Foer and Wiesetlier were just letting the magazine gradually slide into irrelevance and inevitable death anyway. This is a magazine whose readership has dropped by half since 2000.<p>If Hughes doesn&#x27;t want to subsidize a money-losing institution with a declining and aging readership, then isn&#x27;t it his prerogative as an owner to shake things up? He may have gone about it the wrong way, but ultimately wouldn&#x27;t the public be better off with a TNR that has an ability to support itself and thrive in the future?
Upvote: