Why 'centrist' news fails

The last best hope for nonpartisan news launched in May 2023. The Messenger raised $50 million, hired hundreds of journalists, and promised to become a major national outlet with broad appeal.

The idea was straightforward. In founder Jimmy Finkelstein's eyes, there just had to be large, untapped hunger for news that is neither overtly liberal nor conservative. Most people are tired of the partisan shouting. They want an outlet that will just tell it like it is, calling balls and strikes without asking readers to join a political tribe.

Eight months later, The Messenger shut down. 

There were plenty of reasons for its failure, including the speed at which the company burned through its initial funding. But the brutal result also cast doubt on the premise. Are the audiences most frustrated by political media simply too hard to build a political media company around?

---

Two main varieties of political news organizations have emerged in the social media era.

One type embraces polarization and doubles down. It preaches to the choir, aims to rile up one side, and profits from that anger. We all know who these outlets are, including some of the biggest brands in news media today. 

This model can work financially, but its actual influence and impact are limited. The outlets become boxed in, captive to partisan forces beyond their control. They work as a force multiplier, but they can do little to shape public opinion or debate beyond the margins. 

The other group tries to ignore polarization entirely. It operates with an old-school objectivity mandate to “tell it like it is,” appealing to a broad middle that is hypothetically yearning for a less ideological alternative. The Messenger was the poster child for this idea, but many legacy media brands hope to pull off some version of it, as well.

Media executives are often sympathetic to this mission. Many consumers are, too – in theory. But in practice, there are two big problems with it.

The first issue is philosophical: There is no such thing as "straight" news. Every author and outlet has a worldview. So does every reader. Some worldviews are explicit; some are subtle. But every newsroom makes choices about what deserves attention, whose language to use, which facts need context, and what questions are worth asking in the first place.

Thus even news that sincerely strives for balance has to answer a basic question: balancing what, exactly?

Second, there is a business model problem. The people who pay the closest attention to news, politics, and culture tend to have the strongest beliefs and opinions about them. And those audiences are more likely to read, share, argue, subscribe, and donate.

There are plenty of exasperated independents out there. Polling makes that clear. But it is very difficult to build a media business around them. By definition, they are skeptical and reluctant to engage. They also do not share a common belief system or even a common vocabulary.

In other words, to channel Tolstoy, all unhappy independents are unhappy in their own way.

---

So if partisan media can grow an audience but do little except pander to it, and nonpartisan media struggle to find any durable audience at all, what else can be done?

FreeVote attempts to solve this puzzle with accountable debate as its organizing principle. The goal is to accept the reality of polarization without adding fuel to it. So rather than share a feeble "view from nowhere," we let different paradigms battle it out. Here's more about how that works.

In this way, we are built for the age of partisan division, not for an imagined version of the country in which political differences can be ignored or simply dissolved through better branding.

The point is not to manufacture consensus or declare every argument and worldview equally valid. It is to make the points of disagreement clearer, more substantive, and more useful. We hope this approach gives different audiences a good reason to show up in the spirit of open debate: conservatives and progressives, Gen Z and Baby Boomers, workers and managers, and so on. 

Another guiding principle underlies this model. When people sense that their views are being heard fairly and represented honestly, they are often more generous in their willingness to listen. It's when people feel their beliefs are being mocked or shut out that they dig their heels most.

In other words, we believe in accountability rather than silencing.

---

In the era of social media, it's difficult to reward persuasion over ragebait. The incentives usually favor agitating people to get more clicks, more donations, more controversy, more political ammo.

Our goal is to build a platform where the incentives favor pulling more people to your side, not antagonizing them. That's a tall order, and it will almost certainly take plenty of time and adjustments to make it work.

But we're glad you are here to try it with us.

Sign up for free access now.