Margaret Sullivan is in the front lines. She works at Columbia University. In July of this year, the institution had to pay more than 220 million dollars to regain access to federal grants that had been revoked by the Trump administration, in addition to modifying several internal policies related to antisemitism, academic programs and security. There, at the university, she teaches ethics and serves as the head of the Craig Newmark Center for Journalism Ethics and Security.

Sullivan has been a prominent voice in American journalism. She was the first woman to hold the position of editor-in-chief at The Buffalo News and to serve as public relations editor at The New York Times, a role focused on internal ethical oversight at the newspaper. After her time at The New York Times, she worked as a columnist for The Washington Post and to this day she writes for The Guardian. She has also ventured into book writing, addressing the state of journalistic practice and its current crisis in the United States.

Located across from a university study hall, the journalist’s office, small but packed with things, holds some memories from her career. At the back, a banner reads: “Can journalism save democracy?” Sullivan is ready to answer that question.

—In your opinion, what are the most evident ways in which the crisis of democracy has affected journalism in the United States?

—I think we are witnessing many instances in which the media are being extremely cautious and trying to please President Trump and members of his administration, sometimes for commercial reasons. To give you an example, Trump has sued CBS, ABC, The New York Times, and many other news outlets. Some of those companies are afraid of his power and the possibility of retaliation, of revenge.

I think they’ve chosen not to fight back, but rather to reach settlements in those cases. In other words, just to find a solution, they say: “Let’s settle, and here’s some money, here’s 16, 20 million for your future presidential library.” As a matter of fact, comedian Stephen Colbert described the monetary settlement that his employer, CBS, reached with the Trump administration as “a big bribe.”

It’s very alarming, I would describe it as self-censorship. Imagine you’re inside a newsroom, and you’re worried, your editors are worried, you’re concerned that you might be sued or get into trouble. Then, and this is my theory, they think: “Well, maybe we should tone down the story, maybe we shouldn’t be so harsh, maybe we shouldn’t even tell it at all.” That really starts to undermine press freedom. It does so in a very troubling way, because it’s not something you notice easily; it’s not on the surface, it’s underneath, coming from within. It’s self-censorship.

—In your latest book (Newsroom Confidential, 2022), you described the crisis journalism is going through. How much do you think has changed?

—It’s gotten worse. I’m truly shocked by how much trouble we’re in. Local journalism has deteriorated even further, press freedom is under even greater threat, and the issues that were happening before have continued and probably gotten worse. Despite everything, I always want to emphasize that quality journalism is still being done every single day, and that’s something we should encourage and value. I deeply believe that we don’t have democracy if we don’t have an active press.

—Do you think the press has been too cautious?

—Yes, I think the press has failed in a couple of ways. First, the American press, in general, hasn’t done a good job covering Donald Trump, because they tend to normalize him, they treat him like any other politician when, in fact, he isn’t like any other politician. He’s actually moving the country in an authoritarian direction and that’s not being fully covered by the press. The press tends to be very respectful, reverent, as if they don’t want to make him angry.

The second point is what I mentioned before, giving in to lawsuits, saying “Yes, you’re right,” when in fact, they aren’t. In many of these cases where settlements were reached, the media outlets could have defended themselves, but they didn’t. Overall, the press has been too compliant, that’s the word I would use.

—So, should journalists be more active in investigating politics?

—Yes, I think the most important role of a free, independent press is to hold the powerful and the institutions accountable , that’s what we’re supposed to do: to uncover the truth and show it to people so they can vote in an informed way, so they can act intelligently and actively in their own government. And if we don’t do that in a truly active and committed way, then we’re failing the public, and we’re failing them because that’s not happening right now.

—If that’s not happening, what should journalists do about it?

—I think we need strong leadership from those making decisions within media outlets. The work of journalists, reporters and editors is important, of course, but ultimately you need strong leaders who can say, “this is how we’re going to do it, and this is how it needs to be done and if we have to fight over it, we will. We have to be strong, brave and have a firm spirit.”

I once worked with a well-known and highly respected editor at The Washington Post, Marty Baron. At any newspaper he joined, whether it was The Boston Globe, The Miami Herald, or anywhere else,  the newsroom would immediately start publishing accountability stories and win Pulitzers. It was incredible. I didn’t always agree with everything he said or did, but I took comfort in knowing that there was someone at the top who understood what we were talking about – the watchdog role of the press – and he was willing to stand firm. We need more people like Marty.

—Is journalism a key piece of democracy?

—Well, to recover it, yes. You can’t have democracy without journalism. If journalism fades away, democracy will too. And unfortunately, it also works the other way around: if we develop authoritarian tendencies, that will also affect journalism. They’re connected.

I have a newsletter called The American Crisis, but at first, when it was a podcast, it was called Can Journalism Save Democracy? Back then, the person in charge of publishing it thought it was a good title, but maybe it needed to be something a bit shorter and catchier. So I immediately thought of The American Crisis, and it’s proven to be a good title. So, can journalism save democracy? More or less. I mean, it’s necessary… it’s part of the answer.

Crisis of Credibility

In addition to the democratic crisis, we’re also facing a crisis of truth. How can public trust be restored at a time like this?

—How do we make people trust us? I would turn that question around and ask ourselves: How can we do work that is trustworthy? What I mean by that is work that is courageous, truthful, that holds those in power accountable, and that is very rigorous in verifying facts and ensuring everything is accurate. And also,  and I think this is really important, we should not amplify or magnify lies when they’re spoken. That is, we shouldn’t take a lie that a politician has just said and turn it into a headline. That only makes the lie circulate further. I think, on some level, the public understands that they need us,  that we need to give our best and be as strong as possible.

And what about people who, even when faced with the truth, prefer to ignore it?

—I think we have to change. Many journalists seem to care more about their careers than anything else. They seem more concerned with their connections, with being close to powerful people and getting their attention and interviews, but that’s not the social mission journalism should have. There are always ways to do good stories. Whether or not you have connections , you can find people who want to talk, bring documents to light and do solid work. It’s disappointing to see journalists failing in their mission, one wonders, why are they even in journalism? Why be in journalism if you’re not going to do its core work?

But on the other hand, I also want to say that I’m very impressed by some of the journalism being done in certain places. For example, The Washington Post still has strong reporting. The New York Times and The Guardian, where I work, are also doing a lot of outstanding work.

And there are also smaller media outlets like Mississippi Today, Texas Tribune, or ProPublica, as well as nonprofit organizations that have emerged recently. One positive development is that these smaller media outlets are partnering with larger ones,  like those I just mentioned, forming alliances that strengthen their coverage while benefiting from shared resources such as full legal teams and larger investigative units.

—Collaboration would then be one way to face the democratic crisis…

—Yes, that’s right. Collaboration is enormously important, as are leadership and transparency with our audience, being open about how we do our work.

—As a form of showing responsibility?

—Exactly. Showing the facts, making sure they’re verified, and ensuring people can fully trust them. I think those things help show the public that we’re trying to do the work democracy requires of us.

—From your point of view, how should journalists respond to political leaders who try to discredit or silence the press?

—We have to stay very focused, stick to the facts, but also make readers understand what we do and ask for public support. We need people to support us financially or in whatever way they can. We can achieve that, in part, by explaining how we do our journalistic work.

When I worked at The Washington Post, I was surprised to realize that some readers, when we used anonymous sources and presented verified facts, thought we didn’t actually know who those sources were. As if people didn’t understand how journalism works. We need to try to educate people. In that sense we must promote media literacy. It’s really important to help people.

There’s an initiative called the News Literacy Project, and it’s very good. It helps people understand the difference between fabricated information and real news, it helps them develop a critical eye. It’s especially important for school-age children, but also for adults and even more so for older adults, because they can sometimes be more easily misled.

It would also be great to have a media literacy curriculum in schools, mandatory in both public and private institutions. Just as you have to learn to read or to add and subtract, you should also learn to tell the difference between propaganda and real news. That would be incredibly useful to teach.

—But in times like these, it sounds very difficult for something like that to happen.

—It is very difficult, because the school systems and the education system in general, are also under siege and they depend on federal funding. But I believe we can’t give up. We have to try. Maybe we’ll fail, but we have to try.

By Pablo Henríquez