How should we handle misinformation from official sources? It wasn't that long ago the New York Times told the world they had evidence of Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction, setting off a chain of events that literally killed hundreds of thousands of people. In today's political climate, the misinformation that led to the Iraq War could never have been exposed.
Edit: surely I'm not the only one who remembers how the NYT almost singlehandedly started a war based on false reporting?
Keep remembering and reminding people, please. Also the political backers, including the new president-elect and many of the talking heads currently employed by the "left" side of the media spectrum. I know they're considered good guys now, but they did much worse than the current crop of bad guys ever managed.
David Frum, Bill Kristol, Nicole Wallace, and General Michael Hayden are now MSNBC and #resist heroes. James Clapper and John Brennan are on CNN payroll as talking heads. At least the orange guy and his particular complicit press never passed a Patriot Act, didn't start any warrantless kidnapping/detainment/torture/execution programs, or mass surveillance programs against their own people, and didn't start any wars. More than I can say for NYT, CNN, et al.
The "official" outlets are populated by former CIA/NSA/FBI, and similar people with a documented history of lying (even to Congress) to protect abuses of constitutional and even human rights. In that context it's very hard to trust ANY information source, especially algorithmically. I don't know how to write a program that recognizes these people who were liars yesterday are now the good guys.
So yes, please keep remembering and remind people. Large parts of the current problem rest on a bed of forgetfulness.
Yes, requesting evidence. If they say it is secret, you should conclude the info is false because it very likely is. If there is strategic need to hold it secret, which would probably be < 1% of cases, the public needs a trustable delegate witness. How much trust the witness has is decided by the public.
playing devil's advocate here: If they need evidence, they can just manufacture some, and you're not going to be the one who inspects it. a chosen expert is going to inspect it and go on television assuring everyone "yes this is genuine evidence." all they really need is the video of the expert and maybe a .pdf that 1% of us will read (and be unable to vet its claims).
The various members of the public may have different opinions on the trustworthiness of the witness which means that the government can just make sure that whatever action they are taking is to the benefit of one of these groups and surf on their approval.
This is not well-understood by most people, even at the time.
Saddam Hussein did have a "weapon of mass destruction", poison gas, and used it on Kurds. You can find photos of bodies with white foam from their mouths from that time.
He did not have much, if any, nuclear technology, despite the "aluminum tubes" news clips which led to the concern over weapons of mass destruction. (There are specialized alloys used in nuclear processing, but not aluminum.)
Aside from that, the main information source was an exiled Iraqi politician that the administration said was credible to construct their narrative.
So Saddam Hussein went from a US ally, to a war criminal.
One major US newspaper tried to push back, but the rest, including the NYT, just repeated everything the White House said.
With their recent breaking story of Donald Trump $750 tax, I've been reading through their published article, but have not found any solid evidence for this proposed figure, only just a bunch of links to their previous articles in past years. If anyone can find some actual evidence for the $750 tax bill from the NYT report, I would very much like to see it https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/us/trump-750-taxes.html
Edit: surely I'm not the only one who remembers how the NYT almost singlehandedly started a war based on false reporting?