In brief
- The Press profiled Centrist and founder Jim Grenon in a feature by Charlie Mitchell.
- Mitchell gives credit where it’s due but also questions Centrist’s editorial leanings and Grenon’s intentions at NZME.
- Centrist welcomes scrutiny but challenges assumptions about bias, branding, and independence.
- This isn’t a rebuttal, but a response, and an invitation to engage seriously with the substance.
A fair look, but it missed a few things
Charlie Mitchell’s recent piece for The Press ‘Decoding the rightward lean of the Centrist’ tries to unpack the growth of Centrist and the role of Jim Grenon.
It’s an attempt at serious journalism and for that, we’re not complaining. We welcome scrutiny. What follows isn’t a rebuttal, but a conversation starter.
Let’s begin with what Mitchell gets right.
Yes, Centrist sets itself up as an adversary to the traditional media. We see ourselves as a counterweight, helping readers centre in on what actually matters. Centrist is not “balance”. It’s what you read to get balance back. So if the bulk of mainstream media contains a considerably far left narrative, then Centrist material has to be right-leaning to be a counterweight. But if the mainstream had more far-right material that wasn’t already being called out, then Centrist would comment on that as well.
We’re also a hub for news pertaining to NZ voters. In addition to our curated newsletters and Exclusives, our free AI tools allow readers to pull stories from across the political spectrum. Hence the name: Centrist.
Yes, we’ve published critical takes on topics like climate policy, co-governance, gender, and taxation. Yes, we summarise articles from a range of sources, from The Guardian to ZeroHedge. And, we believe, yes, a news aggregator should provide concise, curated content that challenges assumptions.
We also give kudos to Mitchell as he attempts to back up his statements with examples. That’s a lot more than can be said about any of the slew of other articles written about Centrist where accusations are made against us without any examples given (some, in our view, bordered on defamation).
But here’s where we think the piece stumbles.
Truthful and unbiased are not partisan words
He writes that terms like “truthful” and “unbiased” are now “fiercely contested.” We agree they’re contested, but that is nothing new. Everyone gets to use these phrases, and the reader has to decide for themselves, which we encourage.
You don’t need a PhD in media studies to know the legacy press often filters the world through a narrow ideological lens. We offer something different: considered coverage, varied perspectives, and yes, occasional opinions.
Explaining ≠ endorsing
One example Mitchell highlights is our article comparing “equity” with communism. He doesn’t dispute the facts or logic presented. He just doesn’t like the framing.
Fair enough, but informing readers about what a term like “equity” actually means in different political contexts isn’t an attack. It’s an attempt at making sure all parties to the communication have the same understanding.
Our observation is people often assume that if you question or ask for clarity about certain ideological buzzwords, you’re not on their side. But in our experience, many people using these terms don’t actually know what they mean.
Mitchell seems unsettled that Centrist occasionally quotes sources like The Epoch Times or Paul Joseph Watson. We’ve also linked to The New York Times, The Conversation, and Radio New Zealand.
What matters to us is whether the article being summarised has merit, not who published it. This is basic media literacy: judge the content, not just the masthead. Many times we pass over articles because the quality of writing is too low by our standard, despite the publication’s masthead.
We’re not hiding. We’re editing
The piece notes Centrist doesn’t normally use bylines. That’s true. It’s deliberate. Our focus is on the story, not the journalist.
Accountability lies with the outlet, and we stand by every word we publish.
And yes, we have opinions
We think the IRD’s “High Wealth” report was shallow and misleading. Can Mitchell refute our concerns with the report or the political implications of politicising the IRD?
Did he or anyone in the mainstream media even read the report (not just the promotion or summary) before commenting on it?
Are they even qualified? Because to really understand it takes many days of work and years of expertise, so even a qualified expert is unlikely to have taken the time.
We think electric vehicle fire risks deserve more scrutiny. We think alarmism – on any topic – should be questioned.
Does that make us right-wing, alt-right, fringe, far-right, etc.? Why would anyone jump to that conclusion? We think it makes us rigorous. We are happy to look at any substantive counterpoint and we’ll run that too if it isn’t just political spin.
Mitchell’s main point
It isn’t until a little more than halfway through the article that Mitchell seems to make his central argument against the Centrist. He writes:
“Centrist’s right-wing perspective isn’t inherently problematic. The potential concern is how it may be perceived as repackaging right-wing views as neutral (or “centrist”) while sometimes bypassing standard journalistic practices that inform readers and ensure accountability.”
Sorry Mitchell, but, notwithstanding a few lofty phrases, there is always going to be some grey between left, right and centre.
And it may be dependent on the country you are in.
This seems to us like the voice of someone steeped in institutional journalism, where things like bylines, editorial codes, and membership in official press councils are seen as markers of legitimacy.
We do not denigrate those markers, but they are not the only way to become a qualified observer/writer.
We would even dare suggest that many disciplines and real world experience are at least equal in terms of qualifications.
Mitchell cedes: “Centrist does have merit. It challenges the dominant viewpoints of the legacy media and picks up issues of importance to a section of society that may otherwise be overlooked.”
His qualm can be summed up when he writes, “Many of [Centrist’s] views are within the realms of healthy debate, but they are not neutral.” Does that say as much about him as Centrist, because isn’t right or left dependent on where you stand? Does it necessarily make you right wing just because you point out flaws in left wing reasoning? Can it not be just a preference for sound reasoning?
The Press is owned by Stuff, and Stuff isn’t neutral. Is Charlie Mitchell worried that Centrist is biased, or just that it’s not biased in the way he likes?
We thank The Press for paying attention.
