
The U.S. Constitution doesn’t mention political parties – but it does mention journalists.
This was not an oversight. The country’s founders understood that freedom of the press spurs informed civic debate and accountability for people in power – both of which are essential to self-government.
From the earliest days of the world’s most successful democratic republic, there were partisan newspapers that advanced specific political agendas with slashing editorials and slanted reporting. But there was also a competing tradition of nonpartisan newspapers that warned about the dangers of extreme partisanship, aiming for objectivity through honest reporting and editorials that aimed to persuade rather than just play to the base. They were not perfect – newspapers are, after all, essentially human enterprises – but they helped establish basic journalistic standards and ultimately increased trust between fellow citizens.
This dynamic was not unique to the U.S., but the costs of partisan media to democracy should now be clear. In our fragmented landscape, partisan media profits from polarization, monetizing a narrow but intense niche audience by keeping them addicted to anger, anxiety, and resentment. As political warfare rises, trust in media falls. The Pew Research Center documented the trend back in 2004 and concluded that “virtually every news organization or program has seen its credibility marks decline.” Even CSPAN – which offers unedited coverage of public events in the U.S. without commentary – suffered a steep decline in believability. In a hyper-partisan media environment, people become so suspicious that they literally don’t trust what they see with their own eyes.
Two decades later, this dynamic is compounded by the proliferation of disinformation and apocalyptic politics, amplified by social media algorithms that reward the most confrontational and conspiracy theorist voices. AI threatens to further erode the idea of truth itself.
This is, to put it mildly, a problem. Because if citizens cannot reason together from a common set of facts, then the larger project of self-government is in danger.
A centrist press – by which I mean independent and fair-minded, driven by consistent principles beyond partisan interests and pursuing facts without fear or favor – is essential for finding common ground. It is essential for defending liberal democracy.
But because the ideal of a centrist approach to news can be controversial, dismissed as naive, corporate, or unattainable, it is necessary to define our terms – both what it is not and what it is.
It is not a form of “both-siderism” that creates moral equivalence on issues of verifiable fact. You do not put a climate change denier on set alongside a climate scientist – bolstered with peer-reviewed data – have them both make their case, and then turn to the audience with a shrug and say “You decide.”
As New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.” Confronting misinformation is a core responsibility of journalism today. Fact-checking is not evidence of partisan bias but a reflection of our commitment to tell the truth.
There is likewise no obligation to platform people who repeatedly spread misinformation in the effort to ‘hear all sides.’ This is what author Isaac Asimov called “the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”
It’s a myth that a centrist approach to news means it must be boring. This often takes the form of commodity news – that bland flow of information that avoids taking a stand for fear of offending. But in an era when information is everywhere, differentiation is the soul of a news brand. In general, people who choose to consume news are smart and trying to get better informed. We should respect their intelligence, cover the stories that define our times with wit and personality, and have faith that quality journalism attracts a quality audience. Remember: the heart of a journalist’s job is to make important stories interesting.
At a time when party establishments are increasingly run by extremes, centrist journalism does not reflect the establishment. It does not depend solely on the official version of the facts – that’s simply being a stenographer for people in power. Instead, the guiding principle is “trust but verify.”
Dig into the underlying data. Judge intentions separately from results. Be fair-minded: skepticism is a virtue; cynicism is a vice. Don’t forget that good news can still be news. And never forget that holding power to account is a core responsibility of journalism.
Finally, there’s a mistaken idea that journalism from the vital center can be understood as simply a third way between right-wing and left-wing news organizations. That framing offers a useful contrast in politics – especially given that moderate and independent voters make up an underrepresented plurality. But in journalism, the ideas which correspond to the center are beyond partisan politics: they express fundamental journalistic virtues.
A successful news organization is a badge of identity for its readers and viewers. This means articulating clear editorial principles and presenting news with a human face, with compelling and credible characters engaged in a fact-based debate between the left, right, and center. Ultimately, there should be a focus on finding common ground and solving problems.
Accountability journalism is essential, but it is not enough to restore faith that has been broken by the constant onslaught of partisan media. The good news is that studies show that solutions journalism can help restore trust in media. People are exhausted by ornate fixation on problems – they want to hear ideas on how to fix those problems, from a variety of policy perspectives across platforms. The goal is to make viewers and readers smarter, not dumber – more active and engaged citizens of a self-governing society.
Resist the mistaken belief that you can cover a demagogue like any other candidate. This is naive. It ignores the lessons of history and only succeeds in normalizing their lies.
In polarized times, the very act of being independent will provoke overheated complaints by professional partisans that a news organization is unfair when it disagrees with them. For better or worse, I’m not aware of a single U.S. president who didn’t complain about their coverage – that goes for Democrats as well as Republicans – and that pattern is repeated across the democratic world.
At the end of the day, a centrist approach to news means a commitment to the values that undergird liberal democracy. These include a respect for individual rights and human rights, faith in spirited but reasoned debate, a healthy distrust of mob mentality, and a belief that freedom allows the human spirit to flourish.
We need bold journalism from the vital center to provide a clear alternative to hyper-partisan media that tries to profit from polarization. A commitment to establishing facts through honest reporting and persuasion through reasoned debate can lead us to common facts and common ground. As the legendary broadcaster Ed Murrow said: “To be persuasive, we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful.” When it comes to civic debate and the battle of ideas, the center must hold to ensure the success of liberal democracy.
This article is included in The Centre Must Hold, a series of essays from those who have led from the centre or made significant contributions to centrist thought and policy-making, including former prime ministers, policy makers, ministers and leading journalists from across the world.