There's something deeply unsettling about the idea of AI judging human creativity. Yet here we are, watching a Silicon Valley provocateur named Aron D’Souza try to weaponize machine learning against the very profession that once exposed his own legal shenanigans. The story of Objection’s pivot to The Primary isn’t just about journalism—it’s a glimpse into the future where algorithms decide who gets to tell the truth and who gets to be paid for it. Personally, I think this is one of the most dangerous experiments in modern media, wrapped in the shiny veneer of 'innovation.'
Let me start with the obvious: D’Souza is no stranger to disrupting norms. He’s the guy who funded Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker, a move that helped destroy a media outlet and redefine the boundaries of free speech. Now he’s back, this time with a startup that claims to measure journalistic rigor through AI. The irony? The same man who once used legal warfare to silence reporters is now trying to build a system that ranks them. What makes this particularly fascinating is how it reflects a broader crisis in journalism—the desperate search for accountability in an industry that’s lost its way.
The Primary’s approach is as audacious as it is flawed. By shifting from a tribunal model (where journalists were 'on trial' for their reporting) to a ranking system, D’Souza claims to be solving the 'root cause' of journalistic inequity. But here’s the thing: If you’ve ever tried to quantify creativity, you know it’s a fool’s errand. Journalism isn’t about hitting a set of algorithmic checkboxes—it’s about context, nuance, and the courage to ask uncomfortable questions. A detail that I find especially interesting is how The Primary’s metrics focus on 'source attribution' and 'coverage tone,' as if those are the only things that matter. What this really suggests is that we’ve reduced truth-telling to a formula, and that’s terrifying.
The rankings themselves are equally revealing. The Washington Post and CBS News lead the pack, while the Daily Mail languishes at the bottom. Reuters reporters top individual rankings, while columnists like Cindy Adams and A.I. beat writers at The New York Times are ranked low. This raises a deeper question: Is this a measure of quality, or just a reflection of existing power structures? After all, who decides what 'rigor' looks like when the system is built by people with a history of undermining media independence? In my opinion, The Primary is less about improving journalism and more about creating a new hierarchy—one where the loudest voices (and the ones with the most resources) get to define what 'good' journalism looks like.
This isn’t the first attempt to rate journalism. NewsTrust, The Factual, and Credder all tried similar approaches, only to fade into obscurity. What makes The Primary different? It’s backed by Peter Thiel, a man who once described the media as 'the worst part of the internet.' If you take a step back and think about it, this isn’t just about AI—it’s about control. Thiel’s vision of the future is one where the powerful can shape narratives, and now he’s trying to build a tool that will let him do it more efficiently.
But here’s the real danger: The Primary’s success depends on its ability to create a new market for journalistic credibility. If reporters can now 'prove' their value through a scorecard, what happens to the stories that don’t fit neatly into algorithmic metrics? Investigative pieces that take years to uncover? Op-eds that challenge the status quo? The system is designed to reward speed and conformity, not depth and dissent. One thing that immediately stands out is how this could chill the very kind of journalism that holds power accountable. If you’re a reporter, would you risk writing a controversial story if it might lower your score? What many people don’t realize is that this isn’t just about rankings—it’s about rewriting the rules of the game.
The future of journalism is being decided in boardrooms and codebases, not newsrooms. And as long as we let people like D’Souza and Thiel dictate what counts as 'rigor,' we’ll keep reducing the complexity of truth-telling to a numbers game. What I find most disturbing is that this experiment is happening under the guise of progress. If you ask me, the real story isn’t about AI scoring journalists—it’s about the erosion of our collective ability to trust the media in the first place.
