ARGUING YES
Opinion Columnist at The New York Times
ARGUING NO
Former Executive Editor of The Washington Post
GUEST MODERATOR
Journalist and Host of “Smart Girl Dumb Questions”
This week:
- Journalism: Can it exist without columnists presenting personal viewpoints?
- A closer look at where Americans find news sources they trust
- Vote now for our Webby Award-nominated mock trial episode about the abortion pill
- Your Sunday reading list
We are pleased to share insights into our decision-making process at Open to Debate this week. As the media landscape evolves rapidly, we felt it was the right time to revisit an important question: Is objectivity essential to journalism?
When we first explored this topic two years ago, the discussion centered on whether journalists should separate their lived experiences from their reporting. Len Downie, former executive editor of The Washington Post — which won 25 Pulitzer Prizes under his leadership — argued that objectivity is an outdated ideal in this context. Meanwhile, New York Times columnist Bret Stephens made the case for maintaining personal neutrality as a core journalistic principle.
Though different than the core precents of the 2023 debate, we’re seeing other practices fall that most journalists considered sacrosanct. The White House is reshaping press access, restricting certain traditional outlets while welcoming independent content creators. At the same time, The Washington Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos, has announced a new editorial direction prioritizing free-market ideals and personal liberties while sidelining opposing views, prompting high-profile resignations. Trust in traditional media is eroding, while independent voices on TikTok, Substack, and YouTube — platforms that value authenticity over editorial safeguards that once defined reputable reporting — are thriving.
Journalism is evolving, and the choices made today will shape its future.
We invite you to listen and engage with the debate.
More soon,
Lia Matthow
Chief Content Officer
LOOKING AT THE DATA
Shifting Preferences in News Sources
Open to Debate is Nominated for a Webby Award — Vote For Us!
We are pleased to announce that our debate “Mock Trial: Should the Courts Restrict Access to the Abortion Pill?” has been nominated for a 2025 Webby Award in the category of Best Podcast Episode: News & Politics.
Only 12% of submissions receive this honor, so we are particularly grateful to be recognized in the company of many large, well-established media networks, including Reuters and Vox Media.
To help us win the People’s Voice Award, please take a few minutes to cast your ballot:
VOTE NOW- Your support would be greatly appreciated.
We are also proud to share that we received a Webby Honor for “Were Israel’s Actions in the Gaza War Justified?” in the highly competitive Video & Film – Events & Live category.
WEEKLY POINTS OF VIEW
Without Spending Cuts, Brace for Slow Growth
Edward Conard | April 1, 2025
The Wall Street Journal
Watch Edward’s debate on whether central banks can print prosperity
A Surprising Route to the Best Life Possible
David Brooks | March 27, 2025
The New York Times
Watch David’s conversation on the art of hearing and seeing others
Abdulrazak Gurnah’s lessons in humanity
Elif Shafak | March 26, 2025
The New Statesman
Watch Elif’s debate on whether nationalism is a force for good
Graydon Carter dishes about his glory days at Spy and Vanity Fair
Virginia Heffernan | March 27, 2025
The Washington Post
Watch Virginia’s debate on whether the New York Times has lost its way
Hear Both Sides with One Donation
Progress starts with listening and considering the other side’s point of view. Open to Debate is the platform for meaningful, respectful debates that bridge divides and help us understand perspectives different from our own. Just $5 a month helps ensure these necessary conversations continue to happen — donate now.
