In Late November 2022, Munk Debates hosted a debate about trust in the mainstream media called “Be it resolved, don’t trust the mainstream media.” Debaters were Matt Taibbi, Douglas Murray, Malcolm Gladwell and Michelle Goldberg. Taibbi and Murray were the “pro/for” position (meaning, don’t trust the media) and Gladwell/Goldberd had the “con/against” position. The debate can found in full, here. 

This debate interested me greatly because I have many criticisms of the mainstream media, and I think it’s quite possibly the single largest issue of our time. As Murray mentions towards the end of the debate, without the media doing its job, we can’t agree on basic facts, and with that, liberal democracies fall. It’s that important of an issue. 

My position

Coming into the debate I am on the “for” side. I do not think the mainstream media should be trusted – however, there’s some shades of gray with that. I don’t think they should be tossed out and dismissed completely, I just think that all news, including the MSM, should be looked at with a skeptical eye. Kind of a “trust, but verify” type of thing. The MSM is no exception to this skepticism. 

Will I change my mind?

In the beginning of the debate, the Munk moderator asked a question to the audience (after polling them on their starting position) which was “How many of you are open to changing your mind?” I suspected it would be a high number and I wasn’t disappointed, 80% said they could. In my opinion, this is a fantasy, and people are much less capable of truly changing their opinions on the spot. People like to think they can, easily, though. 

I consider myself an extremely open minded person, but I have a deep rooted belief that the MSM can’t be trusted, and no words in 45 minutes would change that. However, I was open to good points that are worth considering, and they could move me closer to their position. Trust isn’t binary all or nothing, so they could move me closer to trusting, with a reduction in my skepticism. 

Instead of going through each and every line and point, here’s a quick summary of each debater:

Pro

Matt Taibbi

I thought Matt did a good job. I already agreed with the majority of his points coming into the debate, so, agreeing with him is easy. (If you have a position, most debates are just reinforcing what you already believed.) But, he did a great job conveying why we should be skeptical of the MSM with a bunch of examples. He fell a little flat towards the end, but overall I think he is a good messenger for this idea. His main point is that we’re too ideological, and that journalists should seek truth, regardless of who it helps or inconveniences. (Foreshowing to him helping Elon with the Twitter Files just a couple weeks later.) I like this point because people often think “Hey, why help a billionaire? Why help the bad guys? Why help a massive corporation?” But at the end of the day, IF the truth paints them in a positive light, so be it. However, most times, it does not. We need truth, regardless of the awkwardness or inconvenience.  

Douglas Murray

I thought Murray had some good points, but I don’t think he’s a great ambassador for this message. He gets way too personal, too snarky, too dismissive, and gets off subject too much. I do appreciate, though, how he attempted to clarify (a point I agree with) that he and Taibbi weren’t saying that you shouldn’t trust the MSM completely and everything is a conspiracy theory and lie, what he was saying is that you should receive it with skepticism, verify with multiple sources, and don’t take things at face value. That’s not a radical idea at all. 

Against

Michelle Goldberd

Michelle did a solid job, but I thought she was too jumbled and not narrowly focused. This is evidenced by the fact that she was the only one to have the audience clap (denoting her speaking time is up) and the fact her closing argument fizzled out and didn’t land. I also thought it was hilarious how in a discussion about the MSM getting things wrong (aka not deserving trust) she inaccurately attributed Ivermectin comments to Taibbi’s reporting that he never said. He cleared it up on the spot, but it didn’t help her case at all. I also dislike how, to refute the idea of MSM ideology/lack of objectivity, she would cite individual small examples of good journalism. While some of her examples were indeed good, they were the exception, and not the rule. 

Malcolm Gladwell

Boy oh boy, I lost so much respect for Gladwell during this. 

He did make one solid point about “the process” of the MSM holding themselves to higher standards than non-MSM, but he failed to refute Taibbi, when Taibbi agreed that the process used to exist, but doesn’t any longer. (And that’s a part of the problem of today’s MSM.) 

Where Gladwell really lost me was his use of the race card not once, but four separate times. He essentially accuses Taibbi of wanting straight white males in power, which is clearly not what Taibbi was saying when he referenced 50 years ago when Cronkite was the most trusted man in America. Gladwell tried to make it seem like Taibbi wanted only white voices to be heard, which is total nonsense. Taibbi’s earlier point was that 50 years ago before the echo chambers and curating of our own comfy timelines of news we like to hear, the news had to try to reach a broader range of people. Yes, to Gladwell’s point, that rarely included LGBTQ or women or POC, however, Taibbi’s point was more about left vs right and reaching a broad amount of people compared to today (where the NYTimes readers are 90% Democrats, for example.) This was a cheap tactic by Gladwell when he had little to no substantive argument, trying to make Taibbi want “the good old days’ like he’s asking to Make America Great Again. He almost calls Taibbi racist. Lazy.  

Gladwell also does this debate habit that drives me nuts where he says ‘I”m puzzled by _____” or “I’m astonished by _______” or “There’s so much confusion ______.” These are elitist, arrogant, jackass ways to disagree with your debaters. It tries to elevate him up while diminishing their intelligence. You can disagree with the point, but you don’t need to make it seem like the opponent is genuinely stupid. 

Conclusion

My opinion didn’t change much after the debate was over, but I appreciated it a lot, anyway. Without the race baiting from Gladwell, I think this debate would have been fully productive and worthwhile. 

After the debate was over, the Munk Debates re-polled their audience, essentially to see who “won” by seeing how many people agree to not trust the MSM (for) or thinks you should (against.) 

The results were conclusive, with a significant number of people joining the “for” (don’t trust) side. It went from 48% for 52% against, to start, to 67% for and 33% against. That’s a little under 50% of the people who were “against” changing their minds. 

Although with a debate I don’t believe in a “loser” and a “winner” I do think that the metric of more people swapping sides to the don’t trust side, is a clear signal that Taibbi and Murray did a great job presenting their ideas. 

The moderator was even great, too. Even handed, prompting questions, getting out of the way when necessary but moderating when required. The focus was never really on him, which is what a good moderator should strive for. 

I really enjoyed this debate overall (besides Gladwell’s race baiting) and plan on watching some of the first 27 debates that have been held. Highly suggest it!