The New York Times’ Weekly Chat: A Missed Opportunity for Meaningful Debate
In a move that has been met with little fanfare, the New York Times recently ended its weekly opinion column, "The Conversation", which brought together liberal columnist Gail Collins and conservative columnist Bret Stephens to discuss politics. According to an article in Slate, which first reported on the end of the column, the decision to end the column has been widely welcomed by many who felt that the conversation had become stale and lacking in substance. [1]
For eight years, Collins and Stephens engaged in a breezy weekly chat, ostensibly to promote understanding and civility between people of different ideological persuasions. However, as Slate notes, the conversation often felt like a "bizarre waste of column inches" due to Stephens’ dominant and sometimes condescending tone, which Collins rarely pushed back against. The article in Slate quotes Collins as saying that "Hanging out with you like this for eight years was such a pleasure" in her final joint column with Stephens, but for many readers, the pleasure was not shared.
The article in Slate, written by Justin Peters, argues that while civility is essential in any conversation, it should not come at the expense of meaningful debate. Peters notes that Stephens, in particular, seemed more interested in showcasing his own views than engaging in a genuine exchange of ideas with Collins. As Peters puts it, "Stephens is a tedious bore, and Collins is excessively nice, and in practice what this meant is that Stephens dominated the conversations while Collins laughed at his wordplay and rarely pushed back on his fatuous both-sidesism."
One of the most striking examples of this dynamic was during the 2024 presidential campaign, when Stephens expressed skepticism about the potential consequences of a second Trump term. Rather than pressing him on his views, Collins praised Stephens for asking "a good, if terrifying, question" and then largely moved on. This approach, Peters argues, did a disservice to readers by failing to provide a robust challenge to Stephens’ views.
The article in Slate also highlights the contrast between Collins and Stephens’ conversation and another exchange between Stephens and Jamelle Bouie, a former Slate columnist. In that conversation, Bouie pushed back forcefully against Stephens’ views, refusing to let him slide off the hook. As Bouie noted, "The argument for muscling Harris aside in favor of a nationally untested governor without deep and proven ties to key constituencies is much weaker than it looks."
In their final joint column, Stephens and Collins expressed satisfaction with their "style of good-humored disagreement", but Peters argues that this approach can be misleading. As he notes, "there is often a reason why politics are fractious and polarized." In the current climate, with the rise of racist and anti-democratic rhetoric, it is more important than ever to have robust and meaningful debates.
The end of "The Conversation" column has been seen as a welcome development by many, who feel that it had become a symbol of the shallowness of some opinion journalism. As Peters concludes, "I’m sure that Stephens and Collins will miss their weekly conversation. The rest of us can only say good riddance."
A Missed Opportunity for Nuanced Debate
The demise of "The Conversation" column highlights the challenges of facilitating nuanced and meaningful debates in opinion journalism. While civility is essential, it should not come at the expense of substance. As Peters notes, "bipartisan dialogue doesn’t have to be this lame." The article in Slate serves as a reminder that opinion journalism should strive for more than just polite conversation – it should aim to challenge assumptions and promote deeper understanding.
The New York Times has not commented on the reasons behind the decision to end "The Conversation" column, but it is clear that the column had become stale and was no longer serving its intended purpose. As the media landscape continues to evolve, it is more important than ever for opinion journalism to prioritize substance over style.
The Importance of Meaningful Debate
The article in Slate highlights the importance of meaningful debate in opinion journalism. In a world where polarization and fractiousness are on the rise, it is more important than ever to have robust and nuanced discussions. While civility is essential, it should not come at the expense of substance.
As Peters notes, "there is often a reason why politics are fractious and polarized." In the current climate, with the rise of racist and anti-democratic rhetoric, it is more important than ever to have meaningful debates. The end of "The Conversation" column serves as a reminder that opinion journalism should strive for more than just polite conversation – it should aim to challenge assumptions and promote deeper understanding.
References:
[1] Peters, J. (2025, May). The New York Times’ Opinion Trump Conservatives. Slate. https://slate.com/business/2025/05/nyt-new-york-times-opinion-trump-conservatives.html
