The "End" of Neutrality: Tumultuous Times Require a Deeper Value

American political talk has grown so fragmented and polarized that some observers say that "[w]e are no longer in any 'public conversation." Accusations of "fake news" are followed by disheartening discoveries that providing people with accurate information may only serve to further entrench their erroneous beliefs. One longtime journalism professor worries aloud that "what's at risk is the idea of a public that is even 'inform-able."' Putting the problem in terms familiar to mediation, can we get the parties back to the table? This essay will focus on journalists, whose ideal has been to maintain a neutral position from which to establish the shared, accurate information that the public needs to make decisions. But along the way, I want to point to an overlap between journalists and mediators because I think they face similar challenges to neutrality in their work.

The comparison may seem odd. The news media rarely enter conflict resolution literature. Even in discussions about public conflicts, the media make only brief appearances, often as outsiders whose headlines emphasize disagreements and risk exacerbating them. I once attended a discussion on improving police-community relations.

One speaker described a meeting he had called between the two sides, and he detailed the care he had used in putting police and community members in alternating seats, so they would talk to each other on a personal level. The meeting had gone well, and he was pleased with the public reaction afterwards.