Commentary

A Free Press Vs. 'The Free Press'

by Joe Mandese , September 15, 2025

On the heels of reports that Paramount Skydance is exploring a deal to acquire right-wing journalism startup The Free Press and put Founder and Editor Bari Weiss in charge of its once-venerable CBS News organization, right-wing news audience tracker TheRighting this morning reported that The Free Press was only one of three of the conservative news organization it tracks to show any growth in August.

That's not the part I found most interesting. It was the size of The Free Press' audience that drew my attention -- just 3.7 million visits last month.

That's about 1.5% of the monthly visits generated by the No. 1 right-wing news organization, Fox News, which coincidentally plummeted 23%, according to TheRighting's analysis.

Now as the editor-in-chief of a small, but highly influential trade publication, I know that size doesn't necessarily matter as much as the audience you are impacting, but I just found it striking that -- politics aside -- the editor of a four-year-old digital news startup generating less than 4 million total visits each month could end up swallowing what once was categorized as one of "The Powers That Be." I mean, between our site and newsletter reads, MediaPost generates more than that each month.

But I now I'm waxing nostalgic, because with the exception of one -- The Washington Post -- the other two journalistic powers (Time Inc. and The Los Angeles Times) are mere shadows of their former selves. And even The Washington Post is on questionable journalistic independence ground, given the occasional capitulation of its owner, Jeff Bezos, so who cares if a conservatively biased editor takes control of CBS News?

I mean, its reputation for journalistic independence already has been compromised as part of Paramount's sale to Skydance, its "60 Minutes" settlement with Trump, as well as new policies related to editing interviews -- and oh yeah, a new ombudsman drawn from a conservative think tank. Think about that.

We no doubt live in different times when corporate America doesn't seem to support the integrity of independent journalism -- and even worse -- feels the need to kowtow and capitulate to the demands of an unscrupulous president.

On top of shifts in the underlying economics of journalists, including the current transition from digital dimes to AI pennies, I'm not that hopeful about the Fourth Estate. Or the prospects for an informed American republic.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but maybe start by supporting more of the authentically free press. Or even donating to Free Press.

audience measurement, news, paramount, paramount skydance, politics, television, viacomcbs

7 comments about "A Free Press Vs. 'The Free Press'".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

Dan C. from MS Entertainment, September 16, 2025 at 7:20 a.m.
I get it's commentary, but wow. The Free Press was born of common sense and while it is your opinion, the Free Press is not considered "right wing."

As usual, do your homework. The Free Press has over 135,000 paying subscribers and outside of its domains, it offers newletters and podcasts and creates far more impresssions than MediaPost - which is really a silly comparison to make.

We haven't been living in times when corporate America cares about the integrity of independent journalism for the past two decades - this isn't something new - and your need to always bring commentary back to Trump like he's the reason for corporate journalism's downfall is laughable.

Also editor-in-chief of MediaPost - the modern media landscape is much more than legacy media networks and Google - it's amazing how much of the digital landscape MP ignores - Twitch, Kick, Snapchat, Reddit, Pinterest, Discord - this is where A18-34 year olds are spending their time.

Perhaps you should get back to paying more attention to the industry MP is supposed to be covering instead of trying to figure out how you can turn every commentary into a story about Trump - who literally has no impact on any of it

Finally, not a word from MP about Charlie Kirk's assassination - a major driving force in the media landscape reaching young adults. But when Trump calls a reporter a moron, it's going to be one of your top stories.
Reply

Joe Mandese from MediaPost Inc., September 16, 2025 at 8:06 a.m.

@Dan C. from MS Entertainment:

https://www.mediapost.com/publications/search/?q=Twitch

https://www.mediapost.com/publications/search/?q=Kick+livestreaming

https://www.mediapost.com/publications/search/?q=Snapchat

https://www.mediapost.com/publications/search/?q=Reddit

https://www.mediapost.com/publications/search/?q=Pinterest

https://www.mediapost.com/publications/search/?q=Discord

Dan C. from MS Entertainment replied, September 16, 2025 at 8:50 a.m.

@Joe

The majority of the search results mention those platforms/networks - they're not editorial pieces on the platforms themselves.

MP spends an inordinate amount of time covering legacy media which is all but dead for the younger demographic. I just find it odd, especially for a trade publication that is supposed to be covering media, advertising, and marketing, to have so little coverage on media platforms that are most popular with 18-34 and 25-54 year olds. As someone who has followed MP for two decades, I just find it odd that MP does not keep up with the digital and future trends and spends so much editorial bluster on legacy media outlets that are dinosaurs of the past vs. the rising stars of today and tomorrow.

Joe Mandese from MediaPost Inc., September 16, 2025 at 9:49 a.m.

@Dan C. from MS Entertainment: In that case, I'm surprised you're still reading MediaPost. And commenting on it.

Dan C. from MS Entertainment replied, September 16, 2025 at 10:41 a.m.

@Joe - I do like reading about what brands and agencies are doing. MP does that pretty well. And I appreciate some of the research pieces.

But being a longtime reader - I've observed a steady lean in one direction from you and several members of your staff that seems to be distracting you from covering the media landscape objectively and staying up with current trends.

As EIC, you'll likely disagree, but as a longtime follower, that's my observation.

Joe Mandese from MediaPost Inc., September 16, 2025 at 11:08 a.m.

@Dan C. from MS Entertainment: Thank you for being a long-time reader. Just to clarify something a lot of people may not understand about MediaPost -- It is not a publication, but a publishing company that publishes a number of discrete publications about a variety of subjects related to advertising, media and marketing, including one (this one) that happens to be commentary about Political media and marketing. It's not supposed to be objective, because it represents the explicit point-of-view of the author (primarily me, though we've had some guests from time to time and would welcome more on different POVs).

We've tried to frame what "Red, White & Blog's" mission is, including its subhead: "Truth, Mud & The American Media." And for the past couple of years, I've gone to extra lengths to actually publishing "sensitive content" warnings on some of them so readers had an opportunity to be forewarned.

All that said, "Red, White & Blog" is a tiny piece of what MediaPost regularly publishes, and it's up to each reader to decide what mix is relevant to them by opting in or out or unsubscribing.

I admit our system can be clunky, but that's the way we roll.

I don't want to debate you on the overall merits of MediaPost's content, because you already indicated you're a long-time reader, so there's something there.

But when you harp on us still covering "legacy" media and not covering new and emerging media, I think you don't understand what our overall mission actually is. Our goal is to cover any and all media that are relevant to advertising and media trade pros who buy and sell media. And for the past quarter century nobody has covered the share shift of that mix closer than me.

But legacy media still are at least a third of total ad spending (and I'd argue more if you included unmeasured media, but that's another story), and for some big brands and agencies, the share is significantly heavier with legacy media.

We try to be media neutral in terms of the weight we give to various ad-supported -- as well as non-ad-supported -- mediums, and mainly try to follow the numbers. But based on our internal data, a lot of our readers still like reading news about TV, print, out-of-home, radio, etc., and the truth is those very same legacy media are continuously evolving and morphing into new forms of digital media too.

Continued...

Joe Mandese from MediaPost Inc., September 16, 2025 at 11:10 a.m.

@Dan C. from MS Entertainment (continued):

It's complicated. And we do our best to focus on what we think is most relevant to our readers. Some of them grouse, because much of what we publish is not relevant to them. But its really up to them to determine what they read or do not read. And I'd recommend everyone exercise their right to unsubscribe to things that are not relevant to them.

Lastly, I'm struck by your comment that we don't cover new and emerging media, because MediaPost was the first-mover among U.S. trade publications to focus on that. It actually took me a while after joining as editor-in-chief to balance out our digital media news bias and get us to cover the industry more broadly. Again, based on the weight and relevance for our overall reader community.

But if you really want to focus on new and emerging media, I would suggest you begin subscribeing to "Media 3.0," because it's way beyond what the stuff you cited as the cutting edge of digital media.

But that's just my opinion.