Polarization is no breaking news. Since the 2016 elections, it has been the norm. People have a harder time listening to opposing viewpoints in this country, and political extremes are constantly growing more radical, leaving a huge gap in between. On a class reporting trip in Wisconsin, I had the opportunity to discuss politics with several locals.

All of these interviews were strikingly similar on the subject of polarization. “(The) common area has been polarized and so it forces people to take sides. It really does. There’s no common middle ground anywhere,” said Kathy, a Trump supporter. Bookstore-owner Bruce Norm, defining himself as “one of those rare breeds that are left [voting] on either side,” lamented that “too much of (politics) is partisan.” Nick Bauer phrased it differently, explaining that the biggest problem in politics nowadays is “to get either side to agree with the other side.”

The list goes on, but the conversations all come down to a paradox: the only thing Americans can agree on is the fact that they can no longer agree on anything. So what can we do as journalists in this context? Can or should we even do anything?

Yet one of Kathy’s comments pointed to a hope which stuck with me: “People would like to be in the middle and say ‘you got a point on this one, here is my point on that one.’ Most of the time, people like to have their opinions but (they) compromise.” I believe Kathy is right: people — even those who vote for the most divisive candidates — crave political dialogue, and journalists can take advantage of that window of opportunity.

Journalists should thrive to avoid mirroring political polarization in the media. Even though such process is already well under way, it is not too late to do our part. There have been immense efforts in recent years not only in the U.S, but in most Western countries, to get everyone to agree on the facts. Unfortunately, these efforts did not pay off: fact-checking proved to have little to no effect on people who are already won over to one side of the political spectrum. So with that, we must look for other solutions. Seeking dialogue should be our priority, rather than trying to reach a neutrality that cannot exist in journalism. If people share and discuss ideas instead of keeping them to themselves, cooperation becomes possible.

Journalists are particularly well positioned to spark dialogue, since our jobs are to mediate information from one person to another. We are the ones who can turn to strangers on the street and initiate a conversation on incredibly profound subjects even though we’ve only known each other for a few minutes, and then share it with a large audience. We can be far more in touch with people — or so it seems — than politicians who are often said to be disconnected from everyday concerns. If we have some power to bridge the gap, not using it would be both selfish and irresponsible. We have to build trust in three directions: between people themselves, between people and the media, and eventually, between people and the political world. If we all do our part, the face of this country could change.

Practically, this means genuinely and rationally engaging with people we disagree with and letting their words sink into us, dismissing the temptation to put them in a “basket of deplorables.” It means trying to understand the voices we write about — the voices we like as well as those we don’t.

Writing our stories as if the people interviewed were going to read them — and trying to ensure they will read them — seems a good place to start; it is a way to be transparent to people we interview. Writing in politically independent publications may also enable us to reach a more politically diverse audience. In addition, it is crucial to get in touch with the people who least trust the media and write about them. Some will close their doors on you, saying they don’t talk politics or that journalism is fake news, but don’t let this discourage you. Go knock on the next door, engage with as many people as you can — do your part.

Because if we don’t get out there to listen to as many people as we can and write truthfully about their experiences, if we don’t try to work our way to the truth along with people we interview, who will?

(This is where the dialogue starts: if you disagree with what I have written, if you think something is missing or if you have any comment, please do engage with me. Write back! Because by shrugging and saying “whatever” when we don’t agree, we’re only broadening the invisible gap of polarization.)

Servane Duquénois is a visiting scholar completing a thesis in American Studies. She can be contacted at [email protected]. If you would like to respond publicly to this op-ed, send a Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect the views of all staff members of The Daily Northwestern.