Tri-College Newspapers Host Panel on Politics, AI, and the State of Journalism

On November 6, The Haverford Clerk, The Bi-College News, and The Swarthmore Phoenix jointly hosted a panel in Founders Great Hall featuring alumni journalists from across the Tri-College Consortium. Moderated by Haverford Clerk Associate Editor Jackson Juzang HC’26, Bi-Co News Co-Editor in Chief Jessica Schott-Rosenfeld HC’26, and Swarthmore Phoenix Managing Editor Daniel Perrin SC ’27, the panel explored the role of journalism in relation to the current political climate and artificial intelligence (AI). Panelists included former Politico deputy healthcare editor and current freelance healthcare journalist Don Sapatkin HC’78, Politico managing editor for policy news Clea Benson BMC’91, and Theodore Gup, a former Washington Post staff writer and editor and current Swarthmore College Visiting Professor for Issues of Social Change. The panel drew more than 40 attendees, most of whom were Tri-Co students.

After opening with a discussion of defining moments in their careers, Perrin asked the panelists to describe “the current state of journalism in one word or phrase.” Benson replied, “vital,” Sapatkin said “challenged,” and Gup responded that it is the job of journalists to make people care about the state of democracy. The next question focused on journalists’ ability to combat misinformation and the potential risks involved. Benson voiced concern about the recent capitulation of news organizations to the government, specifically referencing the Paramount-Skydance merger, which was criticized for perceived attempts to appease the Trump administration. Sapatkin expressed how “it’s imperative for journalists to do what they’re supposed to do” by holding the government to account. Gup explained that journalists are on the front lines of the fight to maintain democracy, and they must be prepared to “leave it all on the court,” adding, “This is no time to be afraid.”

The next couple of questions addressed the public’s lack of trust in journalism, with Schott-Rosenfeld citing recent figures showing that fewer than 30% of Americans trust the media. Sapatkin responded that, while he did not believe the trend was the media’s fault, the topics he covers—mental health and addiction—are too specialized to attract much public scrutiny or criticism. Benson asserted that trust in some institutions remains, and pointed to the efforts of newspapers like The New York Times to rebuild trust by adding biographies to its website that address its reporters’ potential biases. She added that social media is “a double-edged sword,” explaining that while news engagement on platforms like Substack and TikTok is a good thing, people can choose to listen solely to what resonates with them. Gup’s answer centered around the growing divide in American politics, questioning how to “jump the chasm to the other side.” He recalled how there used to be “a pool of common facts,” with disputes and arguments arising from differing interpretations of those facts, but now, disagreements arise from competing realities.

The moderators then moved on to a discussion of AI in journalism, with Juzang highlighting its capability to accelerate disinformation. He asked the panelists whether they see AI as a threat to journalism or as something that can be integrated positively. Benson responded that AI is a labor-saving tool for journalists, citing its ability to sift through large numbers of documents quickly. She focused on its data-gathering capabilities, adding that “what journalism is, is not what AI does,” and that AI is incapable of supplanting the “human-to-human element of journalism.” Sapatkin and Gup were hesitant to speak on AI’s value, both explaining that it is too early to fully understand the implications—positive or negative—of its introduction to journalism.

The following questions had been submitted virtually by students prior to the panel and read aloud by the moderators; the first asked what advice the panelists would give journalists 100 years from now. Reflecting on her earlier comments about AI, Benson said she would tell them to focus on the human element of journalism, regardless of the technology that exists. Sapatkin said he would advise them to stick to the truth, noting that during the Iraq War, some newspapers refused to run articles critical of the war out of fear that readers would cancel their subscriptions. He said that even if the truth is unpopular with the public, “you have to tell them.” Gup said he would caution future journalists against an overreliance on history, adding that people have become “enslaved” to the perceived cyclical nature of history by relying on it to predict the future. He expressed concern about interpreting history as a definitive prediction of the future, explaining that the future is unpredictable and may not align with the past.

The next question asked the panelists what they have found to be the most common misconceptions about journalism. Benson answered that some see journalists as immune to falling for false narratives, when in reality they deal with “the fog of war” every day and do not immediately see everything clearly. Sapatkin responded that some expect “corporate bias” in journalism to be obvious, when in fact it is much subtler; he also added that some mistakenly believe journalism is glamorous or exciting, pointing to the 1976 film All the President’s Men as an example of journalism’s dramatization in media. Expanding on Sapatkin’s latter point, Gup said that most of journalism is not dramatic or exciting but boring. He also shared a misconception within the profession, saying “we journalists are not nearly as smart as we think we are,” and that, in terms of importance, “second only to curiosity is humility in journalism.”

The moderators then moved to audience questions, with one audience member asking the panelists about their favorite stories from their college careers. In response, Sapatkin shared two stories from his time working for the Bi-Co News. One of his articles exposed a Bryn Mawr professor for sleeping with his students, who defended himself by claiming that other professors did the same thing. Another article outlined a security failure on campus: the doors to many rooms—including the newsroom, student rooms, and the President’s office—could be opened with the same key, a problem that remained unaddressed even after the article’s publication. Benson, who also wrote for the Bi-Co News as a student, explained that the most interesting stories during her time were those that dealt with campus divisions over culture wars, specifically those related to political correctness. She added that if she could go back in time and give herself advice, she would tell herself to “be way harder on administration,” and be “more hard-hitting.”

The final two audience questions focused on the current political climate and its intersection with journalism. The first dealt with holding university administrations responsible for repressing student activism relating to Palestine and Israel. Benson emphasized how it is important as a journalist to explore all aspects of what is happening without worrying about the reaction from university administrators, stating that a journalist’s “role is to shed light on the impact of what administration is doing.” Gup, who is Jewish, added that regardless of personal opinions on the situation, it is “concerning and sad” that university administrations have been able to silence activism. Acknowledging that some may disagree with his opinion, he explained that many administrations “have created this illusion of rampant antisemitism…as an excuse to deprive others of their right to free speech.” 

The second question asked the panelists how student journalists should navigate the current climate of heightened political angst, especially when they feel threatened by how college administrations react to it. Benson answered that she would like to see more journalistic focus on the impacts of the Trump administration’s policies and their attempts to withhold information. Sapatkin noted that while journalists are trained to focus on both sides of an issue, both sides are not always equal. He said that it took journalists a long time to say outright that Trump’s rhetoric is “not the other side, it’s a lie. He made it up.” He advocated publishing the truth, even at the cost of alienating some readers. Gup expressed concern about inaction on college campuses across the country regarding the Trump administration, which he claimed “has successfully intimidated every liberal arts campus.” He said that “the notion that [universities] are centers of indoctrination is utter and complete bullshit,” pointing out that many leading conservatives attended Ivy League schools.

The panel concluded with the moderators thanking the panelists for attending and the panelists expressing gratitude for the opportunity to participate. Sapatkin praised the depth and complexity of the moderators’ questions, joking that when he received them in advance, he thought, “Jesus Christ! I really need to think about this.”