RUTHFULLY YOURS

The U.S. is deeply polarized, with divisions over race, class and sexuality widening under a president who exploits them. Social media brings out the worst in us. But good journalism has traditionally helped society find balance in unsettled times by giving voice to all sides of the debate, by helping people talk through their differences and seek compromise.

These three august institutions failed to do that. To put it plainly: They caved in.

In “How-To,” the poem published by the Nation, a street hustler offers advice on how to panhandle. The use of dialect suggests that the hustler is black, drawing complaints that the poem is racist. Because the hustler suggests faking a disability, it was condemned as “ableist.” The poet, Anders Carlson-Wee, who is white, was also accused of “cultural appropriation.” “We are sorry for the pain we have caused to the many communities affected by this poem,” wrote the magazine’s poetry editors, Stephanie Burt and Carmen Gimenez Smith. They said they were “revising our process for solicited and unsolicited submissions.” The New Yorker’s change of heart occurred after many liberals expressed outrage that Mr. Bannon had been invited to its festival and several celebrity speakers threatened to withdraw.

There is growing support on the left for the idea that denying a platform to someone like Mr. Bannon doesn’t qualify as censorship because his views are well-known. But there is no question that a large crowd would have turned out to hear Mr. Remnick’s tough questioning of a man who remains globally influential.

The essay that sank Mr. Buruma was written by Jian Ghomeshi, a Canadian radio broadcaster who was accused of sexually abusing more than 20 women. In the essay, Mr. Ghomeshi acknowledged his mistreatment of women but insisted that some of the accusations against him were “inaccurate.” He was acquitted of five charges of sexual assault in 2016. Critics of the essay complained that Mr. Ghomeshi minimized his offenses by failing to address claims he slapped and choked women and by suggesting that only “several” were involved.

Mr. Buruma defended the essay after his departure. “I expected that there would be strong reactions, but my hope was that it would open up the discussion about what to do with people who have misbehaved, but have been acquitted by a court,” he told Vrij Nederland, a Dutch magazine.

The journalist’s job is to ask difficult questions, prompting what can be uncomfortable conversations. This can be complicated. Presenting objectionable views could suggest one is condoning them. Yet learning something about the experience and views of those we dislike or with whom we disagree is crucial to understanding the deepening—and dangerous—divisions in our society.

Laura Kipnis, a contributor to the New York Review, underlined just how difficult it is to be a journalist. “People are terrified to get caught in a Twitter storm,” she told a reporter. “And if they say they support Ian, it’s easy for someone to say, ‘There’s someone who doesn’t care about sexual assault.’ ”

At a time when we are at each other’s throats, who can provide the perspective to help us regain our senses? We need brave journalists more than ever today.

Mr. Finan is executive director of the National Coalition Against Censorship and author of “From the Palmer Raids to the Patriot Act: A History of the Fight for Free Speech in America.”