Zeteo & The Free Press: Mirror Images Of A New Media Environment?

Why are the two most popular sites on Substack just two sides of the same coin? And how The Bulwark might be a better example of how media can evolve in the future.

A well-balanced media diet?

Author’s Note: For transparency reasons, I should note here that I am a paid subscriber of The Bulwark, and I had a paid subscription to Zeteo which I am no longer continuing. For both the Free Press and Zeteo, I am at least a free subscriber.

On Substack, the platform this newsletter is published on, two particular brands have an eerie similarity despite their differences in political viewpoints. Both have massive followings on the Substack platform, have untold ambitions of expanding their reach in the media field, and are rewarded handsomely for positioning themselves right on the mark of viral social media politics.

I am talking about Zeteo for the politically progressive left, and The Free Press for the anti-woke IDW (Intellectual Dark Web) right.

Created by former New York Times opinion writer Bari Weiss after she resigned from the newspaper, citing a hostile culture lacking ideological diversity, the site was originally called Common Sense. After gaining success by featuring whistleblower stories that would go uncovered by the mainstream media, Weiss’s brand quickly built a name for itself by highlighting the moral rot in institutions and revealing stories that they see as being ignored or misconstrued due to progressive dogma. By late 2022, Weiss changed the brand name to The Free Press and expanded its ambitions in the media landscape. Based on the latest data available provided by both sites, The Free Press has garnered 630,591 free and paid subscribers by mid-April 2024 which makes it the most popular site on the platform.

On its About page, the Free Press team is clear on what their coverage is like. They claim the site is “built on the ideals that once were the bedrock of great journalism: honesty, doggedness, and fierce independence.” Adding their content will contain “the quality once expected from the legacy press, but the fearlessness of the new.”

Soon after the name change, Weiss was allowed access by the new CEO of Twitter (X) Elon Musk to all of the social media company’s internal documents, which were compiled by Weiss and other independent journalists like Matt Taibbi to form the Twitter Files. Since its re-release, The Free Press has gained online and international attention for reporting whistleblower accounts detailing the problems surrounding transgender healthcare for teenagers, creating a limited series podcast that casts a favorable light on J.K. Rowling (Who was heavily criticized by many online for her views on trans issues), and most recently published a damning op-ed by Uri Berliner accusing his then-employer NPR of losing its way by telling its viewers what to think. The Free Press contains a collection of articles, in-person events, a newly-founded book club, and a weekly podcast hosted by Weiss.

On the other hand, Zeteo has seen a meteoric rise since its founding by former MSNBC anchor and journalist Mehdi Hasan in early 2024. Hasan founded Zeteo just two months after he announced his departure from the liberal TV network MSNBC for unspecified reasons, though many suspect his firing might be related to his comments on the Israel-Gaza war that are highly critical of Israel’s actions since it began the war effort. Instead of finding another job in a mainstream media brand in the US or the UK, Hasan decided to become the CEO of a newly founded media company, and things have gone swimmingly for him since.

Before Zeteo’s official launch in April, the site already has hit 150,000 total subscribers and 20,000 paid subscribers in every part of the global time zone. According to a recent article from the New Statesman, Hasan’s old employer, the site “has generated an estimated $2m in revenue from 25,000 paid subscribers since it launched on 27 February.” Zeteo’s content has been incredibly popular on social media, with some posts getting millions of views on X. Over a short few months, Zeteo has reported on exclusive polling that indicates how many in the US see Israel as committing genocide in Gaza and revealed the full letter signed by several Republican senators threatening an ICC prosecutor looking into potentially issuing arrest warrants for Israeli officials. Most notably, the site’s most engaged article is an op-ed by a Jewish student protesting at Columbia University during the initial days of the student protests, rebuking media coverage on campus antisemitism. Zeteo has a wide range of content provided to its viewers ranging from newsletters, a video-formatted show, multiple podcasts, and occasional town halls featuring important news figures.

For The Free Press and Zeteo, both sides use the same argument to justify its existence and success: The mainstream media is failing, and we are the alternatives to challenge the status quo. In my view, that logic both contributes to their great success and formulates their biggest flaws.

Essentially, both sides are unabashedly biased and they are proud of it. The Free Press argued, “You won’t agree with everything we run. And we think that’s exactly the point.” Zeteo doesn’t fall short, Hasan boldly argues its website will do what many in the mainstream media avoid or inadvertently perpetuate: The “R-word” for racism, the “F-word” for fascism, and the “G-word” for genocide. In Zeteo’s case, I will add bonus points for their opposition to both-sidesism, which has become an increasingly infuriating problem among many mainstream media outlets.

That “bias” and tone have been reflected in its personalities and coverage. The Free Press, to their credit, does hire a range of professional journalists. However, it should be noted some of its contributors include Douglas Murray (He writes mainly about non-literary works on the site but also occasionally contributes to its political commentary), a right-wing pundit for The Spectator who advocated for nationalism during a popular conservatism conference last year by claiming people shouldn’t be stopped from loving their country “because the Germans mucked up twice.” Another contributor is Abigail Shrier, who gained notoriety among the left for writing the book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, which argued in favor of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, a controversial concept that Shrier argued is the explanation for a rising number of teen girls identifying as transgender.

For The Free Press, a quick glance through its website and you can quickly sense the tone that this website isn’t for the liberals out there. The website’s content gives an impression that situates between the anti-anti-Trumpers, followers of the IDW, and self-proclaimed “traditional liberals.” Many articles regarding US politics are in a wibble-wobble state between genuine and fierce critiques of Democrats while giving occasional tepid critiques of Republicans and conservatives. When it comes to the Israel-Gaza war, the coverage has been vehemently pro-Israel and highly critical of any perceived antisemitism, especially coming from the recent student protests and encampments. You are more likely to picture in mind Bill Maher as a frequent reader of this website than John Oliver or Stephen Colbert.

Mehdi Hasan’s contributors follow a similar pattern but towards the progressive side. During a promotional video, Hasan boasted that months before Zeteo’s launch, “I’ve been busy a la Nick Fury assembling an Avengers-style team of contributors. The kind of big names from media, activism, and Hollywood that will blow your mind.” Hasan did not disappoint by bringing big-name figures from the political landscape such as Greta Thunberg and John Hartwood. But on a closer look, you can see that the vast majority of contributors share a common feature: They are all, if not mostly, vehemently pro-Palestine and highly critical of Israel. For example, Hasan co-anchors a podcast with the Egyptian comedian Bassem Youssef. Famously dubbed as the Egyptian Jon Stewart, Youssef returned to massive popularity after a now-famous interview with British broadcaster Piers Morgan, rebutting his arguments on the Israel-Palestine conflict days after the October 7 attack. Others, like Naomi Klein and Owen Jones, have a clear track record of progressive credentials.

Zeteo has clearly inherited Hasan’s success at MSNBC. Not just in its expert clipping of key video highlights from Hasan’s show Mehdi Unfiltered on social media, but also the successful use of shock and eye-grabbing attention in a media economy that values those two points in an increasingly more complex media environment. Partly thanks to the contributors, Zeteo is able to craft headlines and content such as Naomi Klein calling for the “exodus from the ideological shackles of Zionism,” Owen Jones and Hasan arguing Joe Biden is the “White Moderate” that Martin Luther King warned about (For context, the White Moderate was described by King as being more devoted to "order" than to justice), and several articles discussing and defending the student intifada. The last one requires some serious context, because “intifada” was used in Zeteo’s articles to describe peaceful resistance movements by students against Israeli human rights abuses (Such as war crimes and genocide) and in advocating for a Palestinian state (Some might push it further depending on which advocate you are talking to). But more people are likely to associate the term with the two intifadas that happened in 1987-1993 and 2000-2005, which are widely frowned upon by a Western audience due to certain groups of protestors and terrorists citing the intifada to target Jews or commit acts of violence.

If you flicked through the Zeteo website, it is difficult not to notice almost all of their content is Gaza-related, and that’s not by accident. Hasan is persistently critical of the mainstream media’s coverage of Palestinians and pro-Palestine protestors in comparison to the Ukraine war and Israeli suffering. When asked particularly whether the mainstream media was abetting genocide in Gaza, this was Hasan’s response to the New Statesman.

“Indirectly, yes. In the language that we use, in the coverage we choose to do, in the passive voice that we deploy, in the lack of platform that we give people on the ground and in our failure to spell out what Israel is doing by keeping foreign media out. Yes. History will judge us harshly.”

As noted before, thanks to provoking headlines and figures leading and contributing to both platforms, Zeteo and The Free Press are enjoying millions in profit from donors and paid subscribers, while coasting on their reputations through social media and their large follower counts. Before I go to my critiques for both outlets, it is important to note the value they contribute to the political and media discourse. Holding individuals and groups accountable when they are used to not being in the first place, whether they are progressive activists or Israeli government officials, is essential at a time when the mainstream media tends to ignore them because of financial or political reasons. Regardless of your politics, there is a certain untold appreciation spreading around that we are able to hear such voices in growing platforms like these in the present era, in comparison with a nearly monopolized media landscape just decades ago.

First, a critique of Zeteo. For a very recent start-up media organization, Zeteo has done extremely well for itself, and I know it is a bit harsh to criticize an outlet that did not even exist months ago. However, there is one key aspect I feel Hasan and the others should address, and that comes to covering the “F-word.” As I wrote before, Zeteo’s coverage of the “G-word” and the war in Gaza has been overwhelming. Based on my observations on their website, except John Hartwood’s weekly column on the US election, most if not all content on the website has some explicit correlation to the Israel-Hamas war and the issues around it.

This is not to say Hasan and the others should tone down or even dismiss any coverage of the Gaza situation. Covering what’s happening in the Israel-Palestine conflict provides a more human image of what many would argue is a dehumanized coverage of the Palestinians and the perpetuation of the “R-word” in the media ecosystem.

What I am interested/worrying about is the political demographics involved. If you are a Zeteo fan, chances are that the reader is a liberal or progressive instead of a centrist or a center-right person who is disaffected with Trump and will never vote for the GOP ever again. Many in the comments of Zeteo have been supporters of Cornell West, a third-party candidate who was interviewed by Hasan on the second episode of Mehdi Unfiltered. At the same time, it also means there are lots of Zeteo followers who are aggrieved and fiercely opposed to Joe Biden.

Based on Hasan’s conversations with other press media, he is clear-eyed about supporting Joe Biden going into the 2024 election because Trump is a unique threat to democracy, and third-party candidates only siphon votes off to the wannabe dictator. For a media group that is candidly open about discussing the three words nobody else in the mainstream media wants to bring up, they are not doing a good job with the “F-word.”

To be fair to Hasan, he has made a 7-minute-long video segment on how Trump will govern, and a debate between two Muslim Democrats on whether to support Biden heading into the general election. What I hope he and his team can do more on Zeteo is to convey a similar message that he has expressed with other media outlets, by understanding the deep frustrations and angst towards Biden over his mishandling of the Gaza war, but also being realistic of the threats that might impede a Biden reelection. Especially talk about the problems with third-party candidates, which could have an outsized effect on states like Michigan that Biden needs to win. The emphasis is on being explicit and backing it up with Hasan’s style of debating.

On one hand, if it is purely constant Gaza war talk, it contributes to the narrative that right-wing critics accuse Hasan and Zeteo of performing “activist journalism” (Which is pretty thick coming from the right, which has a much longer history in the field with Fox News and everything). I agree with some who would argue that statement is meaningless, but what I do hope more inside Zeteo can concur is the fact that the outlet needs to take this moment to tell uncomfortable truths to viewers on a range of issues, not just the Gaza war which it has done splendidly.

Moving on to The Free Press, which has problems of its own. Firstly, regarding the quality and fact-based truthfulness of its content, it is something to be contested regarding some of its most controversial stories, and whether some are writing whistleblower stories out of personal resentment and/or revenge. But one thing that Weiss has noted during one of her interviews should be set under more scrutiny: During an interview with the Financial Times, Weiss said, “But I think I’ve been pretty consistent . . . I hate bullies, period. Sometimes bullies are professors, sometimes bullies are students . . .”

Having that viewpoint to critique and report on conflicting viewpoints is essential, and one arguably lacking in journalism in mainstream media. However, there is a problem with how some bullies are willing to use The Free Press to further their agendas. Case in point, Popular Information wrote a wonderful piece critiquing how Christopher Rufo, a right-wing activist famous for popularizing Critical Race Theory into a political hot potato that it is known for today, used The Free Press’s coverage and depiction of Berliner’s NPR piece as a martyr for exposing bias to advance right-wing agenda pieces surrounding “wokeness” in media. When looked upon from a wider perspective, there is a concerted effort by right-wing activists and The Free Press (willingly or conveniently used) to pressure NPR based on Berliner’s allegations.

And then there is Trump, whom Weiss is both against and annoyed that many in the mainstream media are constantly covering him in a negative light given her comments in her Times resignation letter. Jonathan Chait, a columnist for New York Magazine, analyzed it as such.

There might have been a point in believing Trump-bashing had gotten too easy. But The Free Press has increasingly adopted a defensive posture toward the former president, in which Trump has come to represent the antithesis of blue America’s insularity. “Whether they realize it or not, this is why Democrats truly hate Trump. Without him, the left would soon have had a pretty permanent monopoly on power,” argues one typical recent column.

Another column laments that “rather than trying to understand Trump’s voting base, many in the media have villainized them as fascists.” The posture of openness and curiosity is highly selective. The Free Press makes little effort to sympathetically understand the perspective of Americans who despise Israel and is more than happy to tar them as fanatics and bigots. It is also perfectly willing to use fascism comparisons for modern American phenomena when the target is, say, Harvard University.

The Trump depicted in The Free Press is less an independent actor than the passive object of left-wing zeal. One especially telling recent column casts Trump as the “funhouse mirror” of the left, an “epiphenomenon,” a “club in the hands of an alienated public,” a man whose behavior should not be seen as “personal attributes” — that is to say, a political actor whose choices do not reflect badly on his supporters, or even himself, but on his opponents.

Furthermore, as Haidt argues, The Free Press is actually more selective in its appeal compared to its pitch. What it leads to is the dismantling that The Free Press isn’t ideological, because in the end its catering to a conservative audience is less of a political unity project, but a more credible right-wing outlet than most of its peers. It is not to say being right-wing in your media coverage is bad or wrong, but the thinly veiled disguise is what bothers many observers. Quoting Chait again.

The trouble with The Free Press surfaces when you stop judging it as a corrective to blind spots in the progressive worldview and begin judging it as a worldview in and of itself. While it bills itself as merely a throwback to the abandoned creed of objective reporting —“built on the ideals that were once the bedrock of American journalism” — The Free Press does have a worldview. It reflects the frustrations of college-educated moderates, disproportionately Jewish, in big cities and other enclaves of progressive America. But those frustrations, while often grounded in reality, ignore the vast swaths of reality outside blue America.

Weiss does not require every story she runs to conform to her beliefs; she criticized Elon Musk, an erstwhile ally, and published a critique of Israel by Andrew Sullivan. But both the site’s choice of topics for news coverage and the tenor of its opinion journalism naturally revolve around her own worldview.

The Free Press has flooded the zone with laudatory coverage of former liberals alienated by left-wing identity politics in their progressive networks and communities. Peter Savodnik profiled “The Hollywood Power Brokers Mugged by Reality.” (Note the old neocon slogan reappearing.) Suzy Weiss and Francesca Block wrote about how “the left’s reaction to the massacre in Israel has many progressive Jews in the West rethinking their past activism, political affiliations, and friendships.” Bari Weiss and Oliver Wiseman reported on the same phenomenon (“Liberal friends were suddenly talking about buying guns. Progressive friends were texting about topics like border security and immigration. In a whisper, one even admitted to watching Fox News.”) The all-but-explicit message of these stories is that other moderate liberals put off by the radical left should follow Weiss’s own journey.

In the end, both Zeteo and The Free Press are the end results of a media landscape where engagement is king, where progressives and their ideologically opposed counterparts get to cash in for their shock-jock type views and content. What can be done about it that doesn’t negatively tribalize and polarize an already divided societal landscape? Individual opinions can help, many accounts on Substack (Including yours truly) have used the platform to share views about the news and current affairs, but the limitations are also obvious. People with low name-ID on the platform tend to get ignored or overlooked from the algorithm, there is personal political biases that get involved in the way, and the only way to get more followers is either following the same formula that got people famous online (Through shock and awe) or be famous yourself on different social media platforms then capitalize it through your Substack.

For the public, being media literate and reading news from all angles is the way to be more informed and less misled. But for all the media groups out there, mainstream or start-up, one potential alternative that could appeal to shared ideological unity that crosses party and poltiical lines could be from The Bulwark, a center-right anti-Trump outlet. Founded in 2019 after the closure of The Weekly Standard by Sarah Longwell alongside Bill Kristol and Charlie Sykes, it has become the go-to platform for anti-Trump conservatives to gather online and discuss with fellow members of the pro-democracy movement in the US ranging from liberals and progressives to hardened conservatives. As of January 2024, Longwell told CNN’s Oliver Darcy that the outlet is in the midst of a “growth spurt,” including on YouTube, with nearly 150,000 subscribers and more than 21 million views online. Looking through their website, Bulwark fans can enjoy daily newsletters and articles, 10 different kinds of podcasts for politics and culture enthusiasts, and live events to sold-out crowds. Compared to either Zeteo or The Free Press, the closest comparisons to The Bulwark is either Crooked Media of Pod Save America fame, or the pro-democracy Meidas Touch network.

Do I agree with everything and everyone on The Bulwark? As a center-left liberal, the answer is of course not. However, content is key, and for The Bulwark, it is something that many readers in their community appreciate. There is little to no pandering to an ideological crowd, nobody is trying to tell you how to think, and you get to hear competing perspectives from inside the house. Quoting Longwell again from the CNN article, “We are quite certain about how to handle this moment. This is really black and white. Just say the things that are true, that are right and wrong.”

Can Zeteo and The Free Press learn a couple of lessons from The Bulwark? I would argue yes, but the scope is limited. The Bulwark’s success is refreshing given how its positioned in a fading traditional media landscape and a convoluted media landscape online. What The Free Press and Zeteo can take from it will run directly in contradiction to The Bulwark’s writing style and strategy, but if they can take lessons from their competitors and foster a more diverse and tolernt media landscape, that will benefit international society writ large at the end.