How Peter Thiel’s Startup Tried to Fix Journalism (and Changed Its Mind)

What Is This All About?

Imagine a company that wanted to act like a judge for news stories. That was the plan of a startup called Objection, backed by billionaire Peter Thiel. But this spring, it changed its name and its whole idea. Here’s the simple version:

• Objection wanted to shake up journalism by creating a fake "court" where reporters would be forced into AI-powered arbitrations (that means a computer program helps decide who is right) paid for by people unhappy with articles written about them.
• Now, the company is called The Primary.
• Instead of punishing reporters after the fact, it ranks journalists on a digital scoreboard using a large language model (a type of smart AI that understands text) to judge how good their reporting is.

Important Point: The company did NOT finish its first "trial" before changing plans. It switched to ranking instead of judging.

Who Is Running the Show?

The boss (CEO) of this company is Aron D’Souza.

• He is an entrepreneur (someone who starts businesses) known for stirring things up.
• He was behind the Enhanced Games, also called the “steroid Olympics” (a sports event where performance-enhancing drugs are allowed).
• He first became famous as the legal brain behind Peter Thiel’s secret plan to fund Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against a media site called Gawker, which Thiel disliked.

The tech chief (CTO) is Kyle Grant-Talbot. The two met at Oxford University, where they started a laundry service back in 2018.

The First (and Only) Tribunal

In April, Objection held its first "tribunal" (a mock court session) targeting The Hollywood Reporter for a 2021 story about an heir to the Sackler family (whose Purdue Pharma fortune came from the painkiller OxyContin).

• D’Souza said in an interview: “Many journalists are more powerful than billionaires.”
• He explained that many rich people and CEOs cried to him because one article “destroyed their lives.”

The founders admitted it was hard to build software that wouldn’t be called “slop justice” (unfair or low-quality judgments). D’Souza said AI reasoning is easier than real adjudication (making fair legal decisions). They changed direction before giving a verdict on THR.

Why the Pivot to The Primary?

The company’s website now says: “Verdicts punish failure. They don’t fix the incentive. They do not solve the root cause.”

So they made The Primary:

• A public method that scores, ranks, and indexes journalists based on how rigorous (careful and solid) their reporting is.
• It uses an AI model to weigh things like:
  • Source attribution (did they name where info came from?)
  • Coverage tone (was it fair?)
  • Right of reply (did the subject get to respond?)
• It ranks both whole outlets (like newspapers) and individual journalists.

They explained this in a white paper (a detailed public report).

What Made the Founder Change His Mind?

D’Souza sent an email on July 15 explaining the shift.

• He said this is “less of a pivot than it looks.” His big question since the Gawker case: How is journalism evaluated at all?
• Markets reward attention; awards honor few. The regular reporter gets nothing in between.
• Objection was attempt #1 (enforcement). The Primary is attempt #2 (measurement).
• What pushed him? A reporter interviewed him, published it, and within hours AI systems read it, compressed it, and shared it—taking the value without paying the reporter. “No arbitration process repairs that.”

He also said the tribunal “worked,” but a verdict only changes behavior at the edges. It comes after damage and only when someone rich enough complains. The real problem: the quality of a story was never measured at the reporter level, so it isn’t paid for. You can’t sue your way to a fix; you need a new tool.

Important Point: The Primary is described as “pre-revenue” — it makes no money yet, and how it will make money is still undecided.

How Are Journalists Ranked So Far?

From a small starting group:

• Top outlets: Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post and David Ellison’s CBS News lead.
• Lowest outlet: Daily Mail tabloid has the worst average score.
• Top individuals: Reuters reporters, led by Rajesh Kumar Singh (covers U.S. aviation).
• Lowest-scoring prominent writers: Cindy Adams (NY Post), Mark Halperin (Daily Mail), and AI journalists Mike Isaac and Cade Metz (NY Times).
• THR and its staff are not ranked yet.

D’Souza says the scorecard helps good reporters: a 15-year careful journalist now has a public record to show editors. That changes incentives by making quality visible, not by shaming.

Not the First Watchdog for News

The Primary isn’t new in wanting to watch the watchers:

1. NewsTrust (about 20 years ago): non-profit where staff rated stories.
2. The Factual (2016): automated browser tool.
3. Credder (2019): called “Rotten Tomatoes for news.”

None of those are still running.

Summary

A Thiel-backed startup began as Objection, a plan to use AI courts to arbitrate complaints against journalists. It renamed to The Primary and now ranks reporters and outlets with AI based on reporting rigor. The founder says ranking fixes the root cause (lack of measurement) better than punishment. Early rankings show traditional outlets on top and tabloids low. Similar rating projects existed before but died. The Primary is new, free of revenue, and untested at scale.

FAQ

1. What does “AI-powered arbitration” mean in kid terms?
It means using a smart computer program to help decide if a news story was unfair, like a robot helper in a fake court.

2. Why did they stop the tribunal idea?
They learned a verdict only helps a few rich complainers after harm is done. Measuring reporter quality up front helps everyone, so they switched.

3. Is The Primary making money?
No. The founder says it is “pre-revenue,” meaning it hasn’t figured out how to earn cash yet.

4. Who scores best and worst right now?
Washington Post and CBS score best as outlets; Daily Mail scores worst. Reuters reporters top individuals; some famous columnists score low.

5. Did this kind of thing exist before?
Yes, NewsTrust, The Factual, and Credder all tried to rate news. All shut down.