Do we, as voters, have an obligation to be informed? Where could such a duty come from? Who might we owe it to?
The Washington Post's recent profile of the "Anti-Greta" raises concerns over journalistic ethics. Does giving space to fringe beliefs always run afoul of the duty to avoid false equivalence?
How should we understand the politics behind Trump's designation of "beauty"? What is at stake in the architectural design of federal buildings?
What might justify an organization or government's wielding of exclusionary power? What does it mean to be removed from the conversation?
How can we balance accuracy against alarmism? How can we avoid defeatism and instead inspire action? What does scientific accuracy demand?
Japan has claimed that the Rising Sun flag is not a political statement, but what other meaning can a flag have? And who gets to say what a flag symbolizes?
The situation in Australia is further complicated by the climate change politics at play. It may not have caused the fires, but climate change isn't only in the minds of "raving inner-city lefties" either.
The political assault on truth has far-reaching implications. Can we save government from Orwellian dystopia and rescue ethics from a world without facts?
The value of the impeachment hearings extends well beyond the immediate political horizon. It is not a tool in service of a particular end, but a communicative symbol to the world.
Literary criticism often encourages us to separate the art from the artist, but the Nobel Committee's recognition of Peter Handke makes the issue bigger than what's on the page.