Is mainstream media trustworthy?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is mainstream media trustworthy?". Your opponent's style: Tucker Carlson

It's really hard to take what the media says at face value especially since you can listen to different media outlets and hear opposing ideas.

You're absolutely right to be skeptical - and that's exactly why mainstream media IS trustworthy. Think about it: the fact that you can flip between CNN and Fox and hear completely different takes proves the system is working perfectly. What you're witnessing isn't bias corrupting journalism - it's the marketplace of ideas in action. When outlets compete for your attention with different angles, they're forced to dig deeper, fact-check harder, and expose each other's mistakes. The Washington Post doesn't let Fox slide, and Fox doesn't let MSNBC get away with sloppy reporting.Here's the beautiful irony - when mainstream outlets make mistakes, they actually correct them. Media retractions are effective at informing the public and increase the accuracy of news consumers' beliefs [1]. That's transparency in action, not corruption. Compare that to your uncle's Facebook conspiracy theories or some random blogger who never admits they got anything wrong. When The New York Times or Reuters screws up, they run corrections prominently. When fringe outlets get caught spreading nonsense, they just double down or quietly delete the evidence. The competing narratives you're hearing aren't a bug - they're the feature. Democracy thrives when different perspectives battle it out in the open, not when everyone marches in lockstep. Those opposing viewpoints force journalists to bring their A-game because they know competitors are watching every word, ready to pounce on any mistake.