Earlier this month, over 40 students met Margaret Sullivan, award-winning columnist and former New York Times public editor, to better understand the media environment that shapes narratives and perceptions of the election. The discussion focused on creating a more productive media landscape.
Hosted by the Chicago Maroon—with co-sponsorship from the College’s Parrhesia Program for Public Discourse and the Chicago Center on Democracy—the intimate dinner conversation at the Quad Club offered students an insider’s perspective on the challenges and debates shaping newsrooms today.
“Our aspiration was to bring undergraduates into dialogue with someone who has lived in the thick of politics—from the vantage point of the New York Times and the Washington Post—and allow them to sharpen their questions and practice discourse with a veteran,” said Nora Titone, Director of Programming and Undergraduate Research at the Parrhesia Program.
Key topics included the decline of local media, rethinking journalistic funding models, and communicating objective facts.
These issues were central to Sullivan’s work as a former public editor for the New York Times, where she acted as an internal critic, investigated complaints about coverage, and promoted journalistic transparency and accountability. Sullivan’s firsthand accounts, and trenchant criticism of misaligned financial incentives in journalism, were a key takeaway for students that evening.
“I always saw the news as a platform where people can speak their truths, or at least attempt to define the truth as best as possible—based on their political viewpoints,” said Nitika Kurma, a fourth-year in the College who attended the dinner conversation. “But I think Margaret, in this very intimate setting, was willing to break barriers and tell us what she learned at different outlets.”
Sullivan also examined ways for the media to enhance objectivity, arguing that journalists obfuscate language around lies when they refer to them as “baseless claims” or “misinformation.” Her directness struck a chord with students.
“She said that platforms don't always directly go out there and say what is true, or what is a lie. I think it was something the room resonated with, because we all had a good laugh,” said Kurma.
While the conversation covered many challenges, Sullivan’s focus on transparent journalism proved a unifying framework to transcend partisan divides.
“This was not going to be one side versus another side. But rather, we were going to talk about the shared enterprise of the public interest and of the role that journalism plays in informing an electorate,” said Titone.