The problem is worse than that. I’m not talking about press conferences or official statements. What happens is someone like a politician or reporter gets fed bogus “inside information” from someone who they think is trustworthy, but even if that person usually is they can be “worked” (tricked) by other people. So you get bad actor A tells usually reliable person B something fake then they tell that to C who is a politician, reporter, retired general, etc., who then talks about it in public.
That’s how you end up with false info in the NYT, but if target C is not a reporter (say they’re a politician or someone else who gets interviewed) then they end up repeating that stuff to others who report it.
In today's world it's really on you to apply some critical thought, or get second opinions from people in the domain being discussed if it's over your head.
If someone says "giant space laser is starting forest fires" your first thought should be "that just sounds a bit silly", and then "what is actually starting forest fires in this region?". Chances are a look at the terrain itself, the land management policies and politics, and local crime reports, it'll be fairly obvious why some areas are more prone to fire than other similar areas.
If you're not automatically skeptical of everything "officials" and "experts" say by now, you might be a bit dumb or crazy.
The problem is worse than that. I’m not talking about press conferences or official statements. What happens is someone like a politician or reporter gets fed bogus “inside information” from someone who they think is trustworthy, but even if that person usually is they can be “worked” (tricked) by other people. So you get bad actor A tells usually reliable person B something fake then they tell that to C who is a politician, reporter, retired general, etc., who then talks about it in public.
That’s how you end up with false info in the NYT, but if target C is not a reporter (say they’re a politician or someone else who gets interviewed) then they end up repeating that stuff to others who report it.
In today's world it's really on you to apply some critical thought, or get second opinions from people in the domain being discussed if it's over your head.
If someone says "giant space laser is starting forest fires" your first thought should be "that just sounds a bit silly", and then "what is actually starting forest fires in this region?". Chances are a look at the terrain itself, the land management policies and politics, and local crime reports, it'll be fairly obvious why some areas are more prone to fire than other similar areas.