New Republic Coverage Excessive, Analysis Finds

Chris Hughes

Chris Hughes / AP

The continuing media coverage of The New Republic fiasco is excessive as f*ck, a Free Beacon analysis has found. To paraphrase the great half-American orator Winston Churchill: Never has so much been written by so many for so few.

Last Friday, the Washington Post published more than 2,000 words documenting the storied magazine’s downfall. "More than just a gossipy tale for those living in the media bubble, this one captured national interest," the report asserted.

Indeed, the story was picked up by mainstream outlets such as The New Yorker, which published a 6,000-word behind-the-scenes deep dive written by a former TNR contributor: "Inside the Collapse of The New Republic." The American public is still struggling to come to terms with the bombshell revelation that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had canceled her TNR subscription.

The New Yorker story contained a number of details that are beyond parody:

Screen Shot 2014-12-15 at 1.55.28 PM

Screen Shot 2014-12-15 at 1.55.46 PM

Another former TNR editor wrote 3,000 words for the Columbia Journalism Review explaining why he left, and attempting to answer the question: "The New Republic: A public trust or a business?" (Answer: Who cares?)

Slate published 1,500 words on the national interest story—"TNR’s Raucous Wake"—and detailed the heartbreaking fallout, such as: "Journo Twitter has already divided itself into warring factions." The Daily Beast offered 1,800 comparing the mass exodus to a bloody massacre.

Of the dozens of TNR staff members who resigned, only a handful of have published their extended takes for the record. Expect thousands of more words by the end of the year. Our deep national wound has only just begun to heal.