Monitor Night Live Panel Offers Wide-Ranging Insights
A standing-room-only crowd filled Wanamaker Hall Thursday evening, February 6. Principians and visitors alike trekked through snow and ice to listen to four esteemed journalists from The Christian Science Monitor who made up this year’s Monitor Night Live panel: correspondents Story Hinckley and Scott Peterson and editors Yvonne Zipp and Mark Sappenfield. The panel, moderated by Interim College President John Williams (C’76), was titled “Picking a President: Is There Truth or Just Opinion?”
Political correspondent Story Hinckley detailed her time on the ground in Iowa, where the nation’s first caucus had just been held. She spoke about the “campaign communities” that have formed in the state—communities where older, white Iowans bond with young, racially and ethnically diverse campaign volunteers who often come from coastal areas.
“I really got to know these people because my only job was to get to know them,” Hinckley shared. Comparing her conversations with Democrats in Iowa to those she’s had while covering rallies for President Trump, she said, “It reminds you that, on both sides of the political spectrum, people just want to be heard.”
Scott Peterson, Middle East correspondent, spoke about how the U.S. president’s decisions affect more than just the American people. “The aftermath of [the 2016 election] . . . we feel it out there [around the globe] every single day,” Peterson said.
At several points, the night turned toward metaphysics as panelists discussed ways in which they strive to see truth in their reporting. Monitor Editor Mark Sappenfield discussed the natural tendency of humanity to support progress and fairness.
“To me, that is where there is no distinction between divine Truth and journalistic truth,” Sappenfield said. “The reason the Monitor exists is because we understand that. The way the world moves forward is by the expansion of divine qualities.”
Yvonne Zipp, editor of the Monitor Daily, shared a personal story about engaging with family members who hold starkly different political views yet both enjoy reading the Monitor.
“If you can understand why people feel the way they do and where they’re coming from, and you see the underlying goodness of them, . . . I think it’s possible to have any conversation,” Zipp said.
In response to the issue hovering over the evening—picking a president based on truth or opinion—panelists urged digging deep, past headlines and soundbites; seeking out a variety of perspectives; and rigorously investigating one’s own opinions.
Most attendees stayed after the 90-minute discussion to ask questions of the panelists in person or to share their thanks. Summing up the evening, senior political science major Liam Anderson noted with appreciation, “The Monitor really tries to get [to] those tough conversations and talk to both sides.”
Read additional coverage in The Telegraph. View a video of the event.