In the pre-debate vote, trust in media had a 4 point edge (52/48), and in the open-minded poll, 82% said they were open to changing their mind.
He and Michelle Goldberg were beaten soundly by a guy whose first name Malcom got wrong, and a guy whose last name Malcom got wrong (repeatedly, in both cases).
If they are impossible to defend, why did he participate in a Munk debate where his sole purpose was to defend them? Clearly he doesn't agree with your premise. For that he deserves criticism.
