As someone who contributes to the media outlet you think is an unacceptable conservative outlet, i think you run into a few issues.
- im not sure youve sufficently defined “conservative”. The trump brand is nationalism and, to some extent, like congressman steve king, a belief in the superiority of western culture. So, you’ll have to deal with intellectual defenses of things like islam being an inherently violent religion as part of the editorial ethos. in my experience, this is so far from what mainstream outlets consider acceptable, they wont even bother treating it differently than breitbart is treated.
- you may not like this point, but You’re definition of “responsible” is elitist and exclusionary. folks like infowars arent so much “conservative” as representative of folks who dont follow mainstream technocratic standards of evidence. they represent people who believe in conspiracy theories or other less established ideas. *they want representation* and will get it.
- Even if successful, im not sure this brings the country any closer to productive dialogue. its not clear that a more calm, nuanced nationalist outlet would make democrats and republicans hate each other less. many folks, especially on the right, are furious; paying writers to have an indoor NPR voice isnt going to satisfy that angery reader.
So, im fully with your idea that conservatives need representation in media. But, the issue is that we live in a democracy and parts of this democracy harbors beliefs, in large numbers, that many “responsible” leaders find reprehensible.
So, go ahead and build the site you describe above. im not sure the folks you want to will read it.