More than just a gossipy tale for those living in the media bubble, this one captured national interest. The story had the perception of a fight between modernity and history, a young technology prince taking over an iconic left-of-center magazine with a modest but influential readership and then running it into the ground just weeks after Bill Clinton keynoted its 100th birthday party.

Ryan Lizza at The New Yorker offers Inside the Collapse of The New Republic, an elaborate effort to lay all the blame on Hughes. Lizza plays up the queer angle and studiously ignores the jewish angle, except for this subtle signal of tribal solidarity in his conclusion:

This week, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had delivered the toast to the magazine on its hundredth anniversary, sent a private note to one of the departing editors telling him that she had cancelled her subscription.

When Hughes bought TNR in 2012 Josh Nathan-Kazis at The Jewish Daily Forward wrote TNR Has a New Owner — And He’s Not a Jew, and matter-of-factly remarked:

But it’s also notable that Hughes, who is not Jewish, has bought a magazine that’s been associated with Jewish interests, and with Martin Peretz, its exceptionally vocal Jewish owner, for decades.

What’s most notable is how jewsmedia accounts aimed at the goyim leave out the jews.

This is personal for me. I left the Wall Street Journal to join TNR in the 1990s, taking a 50 percent pay cut and a 95 percent reduction in subscribers for the pleasure of joining what felt like a family. I met Hughes earlier this year, and I, too, was fooled by his talk about the resources he was pumping into the magazine. I told him in an e-mail that he was “doing the Lord’s work in rescuing this proud old brand” and called him a “21st-century Walter Lippmann.”

No doubt all those jews felt “like a family”. “Doing the Lord’s work”, lol, jews.

TNR’s legacy is so significant that I could never have avoided being drawn into the magazine’s orbit. Even if I had wanted to.

Coates neglects to mention “jews” or “jewish magazine”. He does however explicitly blame Whites:

if one were to attempt to capture the “spirit” of TNR, it would be impossible to avoid the conclusion that black lives don’t matter much at all.

That explains why the family rows at TNR’s virtual funeral look like the “Whites Only” section of a Jim Crow-era movie-house. For most of its modern history, TNR has been an entirely white publication, which published stories confirming white people’s worst instincts.

But then Coates sees the world through a solid black lens:

Howard University taught me to be unsurprised by this. It also taught me that writing was war, and I knew, even then, that TNR represented much of what I was at war with. I knew that TNR’s much celebrated “heterodoxy” was built on a strain of erudite neo-Dixiecratism.

LOL, “neo-” is as close as the house negro dares to get.

they viewed any kind of hesitation about force as tantamount to a cold and heartless foreign policy. They saw themselves as always on the side of the angels and promoted a kind of group-think at the magazine that I believe explains its disastrous endorsement of the Iraq War

there was never a stand that was hard-line enough to satisfy Peretz and Wieseltier

you could never be too far right for them