In Defense Of The Mainstream Media

The mainstream media doesn’t treat stories from both sides of the political aisle equally because both sides are not equal.

Matt Taibbi and Charles Murray

by Ben Cohen

I finally got around to watching the highly publicized Munk debate between Douglas Murray, Matt Taibbi, Malcolm Gladwell, and Michelle Goldberg that was filmed in November of last year.

The debate was an important one because it perfectly encapsulated the raging war between establishment media and the new, increasingly powerful coalition of independent “Alt” journalists. More than that though, it revealed the uphill battle responsible media outlets have combatting disinformation and rapidly declining public media literacy.

The premise

The Munk Debates feature discussions on major policy issues and are held semi-annually in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. This particular event saw the four prominent media voices debating whether the “mainstream media” can continue to be trusted.

Murray and Taibbi took the position that the mainstream media has changed in recent years and follows a pre-ordained narrative it won’t deviate from. From the “freedom convoy” of truckers in Canada to Russiagate, Ivermectin and Hunter Biden’s laptop, Taibbi and Murray claimed the media failed to do its job and report certain facts because they were inconvenient to a “narrative” they wanted to sell. They argued that the mainstream media cannot be trusted because it fails to report on both sides of prominent stories and has drowned out conservative and dissenting voices.

Gladwell and Goldberg took the untrendy position that contrary to widespread belief, the mainstream media has in fact held up rather well during the major scandals and crises of the past few years.

“In terms of the big stories if you paid attention to the mainstream media you were likely to be much safer and much closer to the truth than…. if you followed the people who were saying ‘don't trust the mainstream media trust these alternative sources of information’” said Goldberg.

Citing rigorous journalistic process and fact checking, Goldberg and Gladwell took umbrage at their opponents’ characterization of the industry and argued that misinformation was predominantly coming from these alternative sources.

The debate on the debate

I found several things to be particularly interesting about the debate, and notably the reaction to the debate itself.

The resolution to be debated was: "Be it resolved, don't trust the mainstream media."

Before the debate, 48% voted in favor of the resolution, while 52% voted against it. After the debate concluded, 67% voted in favor of the resolution and 33% voted against it, meaning those watching concluded Taibbi and Murray were right. The reaction on Youtube was unanimous too — so much so that I couldn’t find a single viewer who agreed with Gladwell and Goldberg’s position.

Here’s a small selection of responses from the official Munk YouTube channel and another channel that had ripped the media from Munk’s website:

• “Malcolm gave the perfect talk to show exactly why nobody trusts his media.”

• “As an old fan of Malcolm Gladwell - I am SHOCKED how shallow, petty and illogical he is in real life. Won’t be buying any of his books anymore. Absolutely eye opening!”

• “This was one of the most intellectually lopsided debates I've ever seen. Douglas and Matt absolutely destroyed them. At least Michelle didn't almost cry this time. Malcolm looked like a foolish hack.”

• “Clearly Douglas Murray and Matt Taibbi have a better grasp on the issues than do Malcolm Gladwell and Michelle Goldberg. It was gratifying to see that the audience in attendance recognized this as well.”

• “The yawning gap between Douglas' intellectual alertness and outspokenness and his opponents intellectual void is just stunning. This sad performance of Goldberg and Gladwell is very indicative of the current state of mass media. Well done, Matt and Douglas.”

I actually read through the comments before watching the debate, so was primed to see these supposed intellectual giants ‘destroy’ the liberal hacks and present incontrovertible evidence proving their point.

Instead, I saw a deeply dishonest journalist and a preening intellectual roll out a series of straw man arguments, half truths, and conspiratorial generalizations that were almost impossible to counter given the time constraints.