Peter Thiel’s Next Act: Evaluating Journalism by Algorithm

Peter Thiel’s latest venture, The Primary, has pivoted from using AI-powered tribunals to evaluate journalists’ work to a system ranking reporters and outlets based on their “rigor” and “credibility”. This shift may seem like a watered-down version of the original concept, but closer examination reveals a more insidious goal: using algorithms to determine what kind of journalism is worthy of public support.

The Primary’s founders, Aron D’Souza and Kyle Grant-Talbot, have a history of pushing boundaries in their previous ventures. They helped Thiel secretly fund Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker, which aimed to silence a media outlet critical of the billionaire. This latest venture seems to be an extension of that same ethos: using technology to exert control over the narrative.

D’Souza argues that current systems for evaluating journalism are inadequate. Markets reward attention, awards recognize only a fraction of work, and individual reporters lack a way to prove their worth. However, this ignores the fact that The Primary’s system is fundamentally biased. By relying on algorithms to determine journalistic credibility, the company perpetuates a narrow definition of what constitutes “good” journalism.

The Primary uses metrics such as source attribution, coverage tone, and right of reply to evaluate reporting. These factors are important but do not capture the complexity and nuance that good journalism requires. By prioritizing these aspects, The Primary rewards reporters who produce clickbait headlines over those who engage in investigative work.

The Primary is not the first attempt to use technology to evaluate journalism. NewsTrust, The Factual, and Credder have all tried and failed to establish themselves as watchdogs for the watchdogs. What sets The Primary apart is its willingness to partner with major media outlets like The Washington Post and CBS News.

If The Primary’s system becomes widely adopted, it could lead to a homogenization of journalism, where reporters feel pressure to produce content favored by the algorithm rather than pursuing important stories. This would stifle innovation and undermine journalistic integrity.

The implications are far-reaching. Will The Primary’s system become a de facto standard for evaluating reporters and outlets, or will it be rejected as another example of tech-bro paternalism? One thing is clear: we need to have a serious conversation about the role of algorithms in shaping our understanding of what constitutes good journalism.

By creating a portable, public record of their work, The Primary’s scorecard gives reporters an incentive to produce content that is more likely to be favored by the algorithm. This raises important questions about the role of algorithms in shaping our understanding of good reporting.

As The Primary continues to evolve, it’s essential that we prioritize nuanced and thoughtful discussions about its implications rather than simply accepting this technology as a given.