> There are several politicians and media outlets who are truthful and backing their claims with evidence (and retracting statements found to be untrue) I feel

> There are several politicians and media outlets who are truthful and backing their claims with evidence (and retracting statements found to be untrue) I feel like retracting untrue statements, while good, isn't as effective of a reconciliation process as it used to be. As an example, I remember early days of the Trump presidency, the Washington Post ran an article about Russia having hacked the US Electrical grid in Vermont. It turns out later that the story was totally overblown, and basically there was one compromised computer that wasn't connected to the grid. In the old days of newspaper, my parents would sit around reading every page, and if there was a retraction or alteration, it would be published in and seen. However that isn't how it works anymore. People don't sit around leafing through the Washington Post website anymore (and even if they did I have no idea if they publicize modifications to old articles), they get them sprayed via the firehose of social media. The only reason my parents know the Vermont Electrical Grid wasn't compromised by Russia is because we read two different versions of the same article and discussed it at the dinner table, having a rather noisy argument about what the article said. I really don't know what the answer is, but I don't find plain retraction sufficient anymore, unless they're really, really publicizing them, which no one does.