Gregory Ferenstein is editor of the Ferenstein Wire, and author of a book on Silicon Valley politics, The Age of Optimists. He also taught math to journalists through the Knight Center at the University of Texas, Austin.

The 2016 election was a turning point for me as a writer. Like many of my fellow journalists, I felt that Donald Trump’s campaign was such a threat to the civic order that I set aside the norms of objectivity and actively wrote in favor of Hillary Clinton, arguing for instance, in one piece, why the business community should enthusiastically support her. I was in pretty good company; media outlets ranging from the Atlantic to the Arizona Republic made historic endorsements for a Democratic candidate.

Then, as the election results poured in on November 8, I was forced to reflect on a very (very) difficult realization: Much of my work last year was, electorally speaking, worthless. I, evidently, needed to start writing for publications that were trusted by Trump supporters.


So, two weeks ago, I emailed my contacts at Breitbart News to tell them I would be happy to start contributing.

My reasoning is very simple: I believe we are living in a new political order, where populism is a permanent fixture in our democracy. I might vehemently disagree with some of the anti-immigration and militaristic beliefs that Trump used to excite his supporters. But if I want to persuade those supporters—and I do—I have to reach them on the platform where they are getting their ideas. In the meantime, I just might be persuaded a bit myself.

It wasn’t always this way. In the golden era of the gatekeeper model, journalists could just scrub the news of ideas they found offensive and quickly marginalize “abnormal” candidates. But the internet eradicated the mainstream media’s gatekeeper power. Today, anyone can publish an idea and, if it’s popular, will garner an overwhelmingly powerful following. In this new media world, I believe we're going to have to practice journalism through persuasion rather than censorship.

Fortunately, my previous experience with Breitbart leaves me optimistic. A year ago, Breitbart began syndicating some of my reporting on tech and politics, under my media company, the Ferenstein Wire. I’ll admit I was skeptical at first. There’s an old notion of social psychology, outgroup homogeneity, that says we tend to see people like us as nuanced and those unlike us as one big bland mass of sameness. But writing for Breitbart has taught me that there are complexities to conservative populism that I didn’t fully understand.

For starters, what I learned from the commenters is that Breitbart’s audience isn’t stereotypically racist, as in believing one ethnicity is better than another. Rather, the general sentiment is one of fear and distrust. They’re angry at a political establishment that is trying to tell them how to live and appears not to care about the erosion of their culture.

I might not agree with how these readers are expressing their anger, but as small-town middle America sinks, this anti-establishment response is not unreasonable. I, and perhaps many of my colleagues, discounted this election how much pain middle America was experiencing. And I don’t want that to happen again.

I live in San Francisco. I am surrounded by cosmopolitan people who embrace rapid disruption. But Breitbart's audience keeps me connected to the rest of the country and teaches me that I should pay much more attention to policies that can protect American culture while promoting global expansion. For instance, I’m a big proponent of immigration and free trade, but evidence from Mathematica research suggests that government-run retraining programs do a pretty inadequate job of making up declining wages for those who lose their jobs. If we are going to commit to those globalist goals, the country also needs to make sure it's protecting American workers.

At the same time, I’m hoping that my writing on Breitbart can help persuade some of its readers that globalization isn’t all bad. After all, certain aspects of globalization, such as an economy that is resilient to automation and cheaper goods, help struggling Americans.

To Breitbart’s credit, they’ve never been anything but fully supportive of all the things I wanted to write. The editorial staff has never pressured me—in any way—to support Donald Trump or the policies he promotes. In fact, they didn't bat an eye when I published some pro-immigration pieces, arguing that the Republican Party was going to have to embrace the Hispanic community to win elections.

I've learned that Breitbart's editors, rather than being blindly ideological as critics assume, are quite comfortable with an unencumbered marketplace of ideas. Breitbart will accept a wide range of opinions. Yes, this includes opinions that many find intolerant, among them, "There’s No Hiring Bias Against Women in Tech, They Just Suck at Interviews” and "Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew.” There’s no question that Breitbart errs towards the strident. Strident op-eds are its weapon of choice for fighting against what it fears is a dangerous tendency toward idea suppression.

Indeed, it’s traditional newsrooms that scrub their editorial pages of offensive material, while their readers publicly shame any notable figure for expressing abnormal opinions. This traditional editorial policy is based on a well-intentioned philosophy: Publishing offensive ideas legitimizes them. But, in the post-gatekeeper world of the 21st century, Breitbart’s editorial philosophy may be much healthier for democracy. Rather than labeling ideas taboo, we try to persuade one another.

I know many, if not most, readers will strongly disagree with this point; they believe that there should be some ideas that are off-limits. I want to be very clear: My argument is that we don’t have an option to censor taboo ideas from mainstream discourse. And, my faith in democracy leaves me optimistic that it is possible to resolve our differences through dialogue.

And, I’m not alone. Ro Khanna, a newly minted congressman from Silicon Valley, recently gave an interview with Breitbart on his plan for term limits. He has received static from colleagues for talking to the publication but writes to me that he thinks it’s worth it. “People in Silicon Valley sent me to Washington to get something done on American competitiveness and bringing back jobs. I will not achieve that by just talking to an echo chamber,” he explains. “I want to get some of the Valley’s novel proposals out to every media outlet, and make the case to every American of what we need to do to tackle globalization and automation. That is the challenge of our time.”

Breitbart is now a major player in our democracy. So, that’s where I and others are going.