Should a newspaper try to do good? When The Common Sense got started, it hired no experienced journalists, partly because it didn’t want people who might think there were things that newspapers should not do. It wanted to find its own way, to learn from its early data on what works and what does not. One of the clichés around media is that bad news sells, an "if it bleeds, it leads" style of journalism. This publication has tried to do something different — to be constructive and positive. It wants to be informative, of course, but it also wants to do good.

What does that mean for its view of the world – is it neutral? No media platform is, and nor should they be. The New York Times, for example, leans to the woke left, and that is fine. The Wall Street Journal leans to the old neo-conservative centre, wary of the post-liberal woke right. If this newspaper has a bias, it is likely towards trying to see the good in the world and countering negativity and hate-mongering.

Does it have a stance on policy beyond that? It is likely developing one around centrist, pragmatic ideas that can materially improve people’s lives. Take its view on empowerment policy, for example, set out on these pages last week as: “The Common Sense believes that South Africa needs empowerment policies that are explicitly geared to accelerate the poor into the middle classes, and it believes that those policies should be based around scorecards that award empowerment points to investors for fixed investment committed to the economy, job creation and maintenance, tax payments, export contributions, and voluntary social investment programmes such as the sponsorship of schools and bursaries. And it further believes that the points earned need to be tradable commodities on a national empowerment exchange in order to ensure that they retain value for the firms that invested in earning them.”

On energy, a view has emerged that believes in South Africa’s sovereign right to make decisions that prioritise the best interests of its people, and for that reason, it is sceptical of the country being railroaded into green agendas and net-zero commitments. The only energy priority must be getting the poor into the middle classes, and that means generating much more electricity as cheaply and as fast as possible. Anything that gets in the way of that is immoral.

And its political views? Agnostic. It has argued that John Steenhuisen must be fired as agriculture minister. That Cyril Ramaphosa splits the differences to too great an extent to be effective at all. It thinks the ANC did much better on South Africa in the first 15 years after 1994 than it was ever given credit for. It also thinks the DA generally governs much better than the ANC does at present. But it is very wary of the idea that the ANC should be ground into the dust, and its instinct is that South Africa without a strong ANC may be very unstable. It has even argued that there was good in Jacob Zuma if one looked hard enough. It also thinks the DA is a bit shallow in terms of the talent needed to run the country, and that it won’t run the country better than it runs itself. It has argued accordingly that Patrice Motsepe may be the best result for South Africa and if he can take the ANC back to 50%-plus, then that may be for the best.

On ideology? That matters a lot as it shapes views of the world and how it should be run. If pressed, this newspaper would say that obviously, markets work better than the state at directing resources and improving the lives of people. And that people should be free to do and say what they please, short of threatening imminent harm to another. But it thinks the libertarian idea of a laissez-faire polity in which the state has collapsed is very dangerous, as then the people with the guns and the money will lord it over everyone else.

On foreign policy? It is very broad-minded. It thinks the Europeans, and European policy towards South Africa, have been a plague on this house. It thinks Trump could be an ally because of his views on energy policy and deal-making, and just because a dollar stretches so far. It thinks the advice South Africa receives on energy from Russia is much better than what it has been getting from the West for the past 10 years. And it thinks that the advice it can get from China on the importance of merit, discipline, and hard work is much better than what it gets from most of the Western world.

On social policy, it is liberal. If Mark puts on a dress and comes to the office saying his name is now Martha, that would be a bit odd but 100% OK. And if you mess with Mark, we will hammer you in defence of our colleague. But Mark would still be a he (in a dress) and not a she – because facts matter, and science too.

Is it nice? Good advice is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you’re constructive and civil, The Common Sense will likely be a useful ally to you over time.

At its deepest level, this newspaper will likely over time settle down to think that between the Reformation and the Enlightenment, the two pillars central to a successful society were laid – not because of their religious grounding, but because those ideas make sense. Freedom of conscience and the importance of facts and reason over superstition.