The news media website known as “Rare” has been the subject of at least a fair amount of debate since its creation, but the real questions started coming up when there was a mass exodus of staff members that were arguably the conservative heart of the organization. While I’ve been known to make my opinion known about this site in conversations among fellow conservatives offline, I’ve generally stayed away from making online commentaries, with few exceptions [2].

Cox Media set out to create a conservative narrative, and they invested a fair amount of money to do it. Of course, the media giant is generally liberal, like many other broadcasting industry conglomerates. It shouldn’t have been a surprise that Rare wouldn’t necessarily end up being particularly conservative.

But, in the beginning, they did manage to convince at least a few conservative writers to contribute, including me. After writing four generally “fluffy” pieces for them, and having a totally innocuous one refused for being “too edgy,” I decided it wasn’t worth my time to try to divine what the “editorial vision” was for the site. I know I wasn’t alone in that general opinion, and all I knew in the end was that whatever was going on behind the scenes, it didn’t match what was being said publicly.

As the Daily Caller reported, theoretically the purpose of the “Rare” site was:

“Rare is … a news site with a point of view. We celebrate the wonderful conservative principles of freedom and accountability; and the awesome things people do to help us carry on this lifestyle. Rare is … a brand that highlights how conservative thinking makes everyday life better. It uses a common sense — not agenda-driven think tank, politician or interest group — lens. We’ll add context to the most important issues, and take strong positions where appropriate. These positions will be in keeping with conservative thinking for the majority of Americans. Rare … thinks for itself, and hopes its readers to do the same.”

Whether or not Rare actually reflects conservative thinking remains up for debate, and it seems they’re still pushing content that doesn’t really fit anywhere right of center. The latest issue is the fact that they decided it was a good idea to push the new Planned Parenthood initiative that will help women who have lost their coverage for birth control. It was presented as a straight news story, with zero commentary.

Nothing was said about the fact that Planned Parenthood still receives government money, or that they made the investment to do this over such a small group of birth control choices, since the Supreme Court ruling really was highly limited. Sure, it’s refreshing to see a straight news story from time to time, but who expects to see one on Planned Parenthood on a supposedly conservative news site?

Of course, Rare theoretically takes strong stands “where appropriate” — does this mean that they do not think it is appropriate for conservatives to take a strong stand on forcing businesses and organizations to offer birth control coverage when it is in opposition with their core beliefs or missions? Just some food for thought, and reminder that we really do have to be careful about watching the real messages that “conservative” media sites are broadcasting about conservatism.