Well, if you get your news exclusively, or even predominantly, from the "mainstream" media, the answer is yes. For the simple reason that the mainstream media is itself a low information channel.

Don't take my word for it; here's the New York Times bemoaning that very fact in an article entitled "Laptop? Big Man? Much of Trump’s debate required a Fox News translator."

If you listened to President Trump debate Joseph R. Biden Jr. Thursday, you may have felt like you’d started watching a complicated serial drama — “Lost” or “Twin Peaks” — in its final season. The president kept dropping names and plot points, all seeming to reference a baroque mythology.

Who was “the big man?” What was “the laptop?” How many seasons of this show did I miss?

Their schtick of course was that Trump's references were something that only a Fox News listener would understand, because they were founded on, "tropes and mythology of conservative media". The truth is that all that information was widely available -- except in the "mainstream" media. Not only on Fox News (with an audience almost equal to MSNBC's and CNN's combined), but The Epoch Times (most viewed content on Facebook of any news provider) and scores of respected magazines, newspapers, podcasts, websites, etc. worldwide. Not just nationally - the "Biden scandal" story is getting international attention.

So the truth of the matter is that if they were doing their job, a NY Times reader would be familiar with the story even if it is complete bunk. But the mainstream (which is roughly ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post, Facebook, Twitter and Google et. al.) has violently suppressed this story. The usual political tactic is to discredit an unfavorable story, but this close to the election, they've obviously decided better to just hide it as best they can for 10 days rather than risk having it in people's consciousness. 

Here's just some of what they're suppressing:

1. "The laptop" belonged to Hunter Biden who left it at a computer repair shop a year or more ago, and never picked it up. 
   • The Biden campaign immediately claimed of course that this was not actually Hunter's laptop. Sadly, there's a claim check with his signature on it.
   • Next try: They claimed that it was Russian disinformation. Sadly, both the Director of National Intelligence and the FBI have examined it and said definitively that there is no foreign fakery involved.
   • And Besides: It was hacked!!!! That obviously didn't fly. Was it hacked or disinformation? Why would anyone hack a forgery? Etc...
2. Then the Bidens really hit the fan: witnesses willing to testify. A former Biden business partner, who was on the distribution of incriminating emails on the laptop, verifies the authenticity of the contents. Further, he verifies Joe Biden has been lying about his dealings with Hunter, Burisma (corrupt, now defunction Ukranian energy corporation) and the government of Ukraine, for which he had foreign relations responsibility at the time. Other witnesses, mostly abroad, have also offered corroborating statements and expressed willingness to testify.

No wonder they decided better to hide it than deny it! Ordinarily, knowing that it must come out eventually, you'd try the spin (lies) of #1 above, but if they can just prevent the free press from being so damn free for a couple of weeks, they might actually win the election! Hence:

1. Twitter actually censors (disables) accounts of the White House Press Secretary and dozens of other people disseminating the story.
2. Facebook follows suit, labeling (slandering) accounts that dare repeat the newsworthy events

More conventional defenses might be:

• The Russian disinformation angle of course - if it hadn't already been disproven. But they're still using the words "Russia" and "Russian" as frequently as possible when forced to discuss the issue at all. But a cogent "Russian disinformation" defense does not rely on the Russian source... It's the "DIS"information that matters. If the facts are correct, the source is not relevant, at least to the issue at hand. 
• "This is a political hit job! The timing is not a coincidence! They released it right before the election on purpose!!!" That wouldn't surprise me at all. It happens all the time. For example, the NY Times article reference in "Much Ado About Nothing...", which was 2 years old when the Times used in a couple of months ago to slander President Trump. And they knew it was 2 years old - because they'd run a smaller piece on it 2 years earlier. But so what? Politics is a dirty business, apparently. Again, that doesn't change the facts.
• "Nothing he did was illegal." That definitely remains to be seen. But it's clearly not the standard used anywhere else. The allegations are of blatant, shameless and frankly treasonous corruption. Much less verified evidence (actually, none that I know of) was used to promote the Russian collusion hoax for literally years, as well as the Ukrainian farce, which hinged on a subjective interpretation of a sentence or two in a phone call for which the transcript was readily available, yet required weeks of Senate investigations and an impeachment that was as close to a coup as America has ever experienced.

There's still absolutely nothing to dispute the facts in the case, which now apparently includes Senate investigation documented funds transfers from Ukraine to Biden owned or controlled companies. Most significantly, there is still no denial from any Biden family member disputing the reports in the press. That's because they know it's going to come out -- unless they can win the election.